COMPLAINT FILED:26-06-2009 <br /> DISPOSED ON: 08-10-2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 8TH OCTOBER 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1485/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Mohanram.B.R.<br /> No.240, 1st C Cross, <br /> 3rd Main, 6th Block, <br /> 2nd Phase, BSK – 3rd Stage,<br /> Bangalore – 560 085.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.M.Bhaskar.Jois<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Principal<br /> Eurokids (Happy Hours)<br /> No.332, 1st D Cross, <br /> 4th Main, 6th Block, <br /> 2nd Phase, BSK – 3rd Stage,<br /> Bangalore-560 085 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> The complainant filed complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act of 1986 seeking direction to Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) to refund an amount of Rs.8,435/- towards fees paid to OP school for the admission of complainant’s daughter on the allegations of deficiency of service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 2. The case of the complainant is: he got his daughter Nitya Mohanram aged about 2.5 years admitted to OP school for Play Group programme for the year 2009-10 on 03-03-2009 by paying total fee of Rs.8,435-00. His daughter attended that school during the year 2008-2009. Based on certain remarks made by Principal of the school about his daughter, they were concerned that the school is unable to take good care of the child. Hence, he got his daughter admitted to another school “Ajjimane” in Avalahalli, Bangalore on 12-03-2009. On the same day written request for refunding the fee paid and to cancel the admission was given to OP. The Principal assured to refund the same after some time. After several request OP refused to refund the amount on the ground that refund cannot be made as per the policy of the school. Thus complainant has claimed for refund of the amount alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 3. OP after appearance filed version admitting that on 03-03-2009 the invoice was issued to the complainant stating that the total fee for the Play Group course as Rs.23,735-00 for the whole academic year 2009-2010. On the reverse side of the invoice the terms and conditions are specified clearly. Clause 2 says that ‘All fees once paid shall not be refunded under any circumstances.’ OP received sum of Rs.8,435-00 as the first instalment and issued the receipt. The same condition is put on the reverse side of the receipt. The wife of the complainant has signed the invoice. Thus fee paid cannot be refunded. It is denied that the Principal assured to refund the amount. Thus it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. The complainant filed affidavit to substantiate the complaint allegations, the documents are produced with the complaint. The Principal of the OP school filed affidavit in support of the version. Both parties filed written arguments.<br /> <br /> 5. After perusing the pleadings, documents produced and the written arguments submitted and after hearing both sides, the following points arise for our consideration:-<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. Our findings on :<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. At the outset it is not in dispute that the complainant’s daughter Nithya Mohanram was admitted in the OP school for Play Group course for the academic year 2009-2010. The total fee for the entire course was Rs.23,735-00. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.8,435-00 as a first instalment on 03-03-2009. The receipt is produced evidencing the fact of payment made by the complainant. On the reverse side of invoice and the receipt one of the terms and conditions stipulated is ‘All fees once paid shall not be refunded under any circumstances’. The complainant got the admission cancelled on 12-03-2009 with a request to refund the amount paid. OP refused to refund the amount on the ground that as per the policy no refund can be done. The Xerox copy of application submitted for refund and the endorsement made there on refusing to refund the amount is produced by the complainant. <br /> <br /> 8. It is contended for the complainant that since the admission was cancelled about 3 months earlier to commencement of the course in the school. The daughter of the complainant has not attended a single day of the course for the academic year 2009-2010. OP is not justified in not refunding the amount on the sole ground of conditions put on the reverse side of the receipt. <br /> 9. It maybe noted that the academic year for the year 2009-2010, the course commenced from the month of June and the admission was got cancelled on 12-03-2009. There was sufficient time for the OP to get admission of some other child for the school in the place of cancelled admission of the complainant’s daughter. <br /> <br /> 10. Merely because one of the terms and conditions put on the reverse side of the receipt is that the fee once paid shall not be refunded, the OP is not justified in not refunding the amount. In Abel Pacheco Gracias Vs. Principal Bharatividyapith College of Engineering, (1992) 1 CPJ at Page 108-109 (State Commission of Maharastra), in similar case with regard to the refund of the fee paid by the student observed that refusal to refund the tuition fees of appellant’s son is not only reprehensible but unjust, irrational and illegal. The rule cannot frustrate the legitimate rights of a consumer to get redress in relation to his rights of refund of tuition fees. Further it is observed that loss or injury is implicit it was prejudicial to the consumer interest to refuse to refund the tuition fees. Court’s conscious is shocked to know that the students or their parents are deprived of their good hard earned money under the guise of a rule which is meant for refund of the tuition fees. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institution. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fees would not arise. In view of peculiar facts of that case, it was ordered to refund the entire fees except Rs.100/-. It is also observed that students are required to cancel their admissions for variety of reasons. If a student has cancelled admission for genuine reasons, he is entitled for refund of his tuition fees. The student is essentially a consumer of services in an educational institution. Therefore, when there is no service, there is no right with the college to appropriate fees. Collecting fee without imparting education will amounts to deficiency in the service of the educational institution. It also amounts to illegal enrichment and cannot be said to be the object of any educational institution.<br /> From the Principles laid down in the above ruling it becomes clear that the education institution without imparting in education to the students that is rendering service is not entitled to collect any fees. <br /> <br /> 11. As in this case, the daughter of the complainant has not utilized the service of OP school even by attending a single day for the academic year 2009-2010. The complainant got cancelled the admission about 3 months earlier to the commencement of the course for that academic year and he got his child admitted in other institution. Under these circumstances we are of the considered view that OP is not justified in not refunding the amount collected from the complainant. Without imparting education for the fee collected and refusing to refund the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant is entitled for refund of the amount. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:- <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed.<br /> <br /> OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.8,435-00 to the complainant within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order failing which that amount should carry interest at 18% p.a. from the date of refusal to refund the amount i.e., from 12-03-2009 till the date of realization.<br /> <br /> In view of nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 8th day of October 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> NRS<br />