The case of the Complainant is that being allured with the advertisement published in different newspapers that the O.P.-School provides better education and hostel facilities to students, the nephew of Complainant took admission in the School of O.P. in Std.-XI Sc. during the session 2013-14. The Complainant along with his sister Manjulata Rout(mother of Soumya) deposited  Rs.5,000/- on 26.03.2013 towards booking amount for admission in XI Science. Thereafter, on 21.06.2013, a sum of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.15,000/- was deposited in the O.P.-School vide Money Receipt No.23852 and 23853 respectively, both dated 21.06.2013 towards Hostel fees. In total, the Complainant being the uncle guardian of Soumya deposited Rs.45,000/- before the O.P.-School. After receiving the amount, the O.P. provided a Student Schedule, wherein details of day-to-day work, food etc. were mentioned. The Complainant and his sister left Soumya in the hostel. After staying 5 days Soumya was tortured by boarders and no diet was supplied to boarders as per Student Schedule. Being informed by the nephew Soumya, Complainant and his sister lodged complaints before the O.P. regarding torture of Soumya and supply of poor diet but it was not heeded to by O.P. for which the nephew of Complainant was foced to leave the hostel and came back home intimating the O.P.  On 08.07.2013 the Complainant along with his sister and nephew had been to O.P. and the O.P. told the Complainant to refund the  deposited amount very soon .Thereafter the Complainant admitted Soumya in Vinayak College of Science & Commerce in +2 Science Stream on 14.08.2013. On 02.12.2013 the Complainant and his sister along with nephew Soumya had been to the Office of O.P. to get back the deposited amount but the O.P. taking some plea or other delayed to refund the deposited amount. On 26.12.2013 the Complainant sent an advocate notice to O.P. claiming refund of deposited amount. Though the O.P. received the notice but remained silent. So finding no other alternative the Complainant filed the present complaint claiming refund of Rs.50,000/- with up-to-date interest besides compensation and litigation cost of Rs.30,000/- from the O.P.

            On perusal of postal acknowledgement, it is found that the O.P. received notice sent to him by this Forum on 02.07.2014. As the O.P. after receipt notice neither took any step nor filed written version, he was set exparte in this case on 14.08.2014 and the case was finally heard from the Ld.Advocate appearing for Complainant on 25.09.2014. It is submitted on behalf of Complainant that when the nephew of the Complainant left the School due to torture and poor diet after 5 days  of staying in the hostel and  O.P.  failed to remove the deficiency in service which compelled Soumya to leave the School and hostel, the O.P. is bound to refund the deposited amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest as assured. On perusal of record, it is found that that Rs.5,000/- was deposited with O.P. against Money Receipt No.653 dt.25.03.2013 in shape of cash towards booking for admission in  Session 2013-14. Similarly, Money Receipt No.23852 dt.21.06.2013 indicates that Rs.30,000/- was deposited in shape of cash towards hostel fee  and Money receipt No.23853 dt.21.06.2013 indicates that Rs.15,000/- was deposited through PDC towards hostel admission fee of Soumya. Further, certificate dt.28.05.2014 issued by Principal, Vinayak College of Science & Commerce,Bhadrak reveals that Soumya Ranjan Rout is prosecuting his study in +2 IInd Year Science. So one thing is clear that Soumya had left the O.P.-School and continuing his study in Vinayak College of Science & Commerce,Bhadrak. Under such circumstances, we fail to understand why the O.P. is so rigid to retain the hostel fee particularly when Soumya is not staying in the O.P.- hostel? It has been alleged by the Complainant that the O.P. after receipt of Advocate’s Notice did not prefer to give a reply. Further, it is found that the O.P. even after receipt of notice from this Forum did not prefer to contest the case in filing his written version which proves his callousness and adamant nature. We deprecate such attitude of O.P.  It is quite but natural that when a student does not reside in the hostel, he should be refunded the hostel fee. In absence of any thing to say by the O.P. and on perusal of documents filed by the Complainant we have no other alternative than to believe the version of the Complainant. Had the O.P. appeared and filed his written version in this case, the present situation would have been altered. So we are constrained to hold that the O.P. is deficient in rendering proper service to the nephew of the Complainant viz. beneficiary Soumya Ranajan Rout.

            Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint exparte against the O.P. and the O.P. is directed to refund the hostel fee of Rs.45,000/- only, to the Complainant within a period of 30 days of receipt of this order. No costs.