| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA C.C. No. 118 of 15-04-2015 Decided on : 19-11-2015 Neeraj Singla aged about 44 years S/o Sh. Jang Bahadur Singla, R/o H. No. 138, Street No. 1, Vishal Nagar, Phase-III, Bathinda. …...Complainant Versus Redcliffe School, Village Naruana, Badal Road, Bathinda, through Incharge/Principal Redcliffe School, 430-P, Shant Nagar, Near Model Town, Phase-II, Bathinda, through its Principal Redcliffe School (Registered), A-4,Mathura Road, Delhi 110 044, through its M.D./Chairman/Authorized Signatory
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum : Sh. M.P.Singh. Pahwa, President Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member Present : For the Complainant : Sh. Naveen Goyal, counsel for complainant. For the opposite parties : Sh. Lalit Garg, counsel for OPs O R D E R M. P. Singh Pahwa, President Neeraj Singla complainant, has filed this complaint against Redcliffe School and others (opposite parties) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). In brief, the case of the complainant is that he got admitted his daughters namely Anchal Singla and Srishty Singla with the opposite parties. Anchal Singla was got admitted in 6th standard and Srishty Singla in 3rd class on 18-01-2011. At the time of admission of both his daughters, the opposite parties charged Rs. 11,375/- as registration/prospectus charges and Rs. 5,000/- as caution money for Anchal Singla, Rs. 6,000/- as admission fee (shifting) and Rs. 5,000/-as caution money for Srishty Singla. The amount of caution money is refundable to the complainant at the time of leaving the school. After admission, the daughters of the complainant studied in the school upto session for the year 2012-13. In the month of March, 2013, a dispute was arisen between the opposite parties. The parents of other students and the general public put lock to the school of the opposite parties. Due to dispute between the school authorities and general public/parents of other students, the complainant got his daughters transferred from the school of the opposite parties. The opposite parties issued transfer certificates No. 231 and 232 of Anchal Singla and Srishty Singla respectively on 16-04-2013, but they have not refunded the caution charges and fee/registration charges received by them in excess at the time of admission. It is also alleged that due to dispute, the opposite parties reduced the fees/registration charges and according to reduction in the registration charges/tuition fee, the complainant is also entitled to get refund of the excess amount paid by him in the admission/registration charges and tuition fee etc., The complainant approached opposite parties with the request to refund Rs. 10,000/- of caution charges so deposited by him at the time of admission and to refund fee charged in excess, but they neither refunded the amount nor gave any satisfactory reply. They used to postpone the matter on one pretext or the other. Due to this act of the opposite parties, complainant suffered mental agony, pains, botheration and financial loss. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. He has claimed refund of caution money amounting to Rs. 10,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of issuance of transfer certificate; Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation. Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite parties but none appeared on their behalf. As such, they were proceeded against exparte. Matter was posted for evidence of the complainant. It is relevant to mention that during proceedings, opposite parties appeared through counsel and moved application for setting aside exparte proceedings. The opposite parties also produced two cheques of Rs. 5,000/- each in the name of complainant to make the payment to the complainant, but the complainant refused to accept these cheques. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 15-04-2015 (Ex. C-1), photocopies of receipts (Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3) and photocopies of transfer certificates (Ex. C-4 & Ex. C-5). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as set up in the complaint and as detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that opposite parties have failed to file written version to rebut the claim of the complainant. Moreover, the complainant has placed on record receipts Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3 which prove that opposite parties have charged Rs. 5,000/- each as caution money. The transfer certificates Ex. C-4 & Ex. C-5 prove that complainant got his daughters transferred on 16-04-2013. Therefore, the opposite parties were bound to refund the caution money on 16-04-2013. The opposite parties have failed to refund the caution money and has charged excess fee. Of course during pendency of the proceedings, the opposite parties have tendered two cheques of Rs. 5,000/- each but the complainant has also claimed compensation and other relief. As such, the complainant is justified in refusing to accept the cheques. The presentation of cheques by the opposite parties proves deficiency in service on their part. The case of the complainant stands established from this act of the opposite parties also. Hence, the complaint be accepted and prayed relief be granted. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that although the opposite parties have not filed any reply to the complaint, but the complainant is not absolved from his obligation to prove his case, only for the reason that opposite parties have not filed written version. The dispute is regarding refund of caution money. The opposite parties is admittedly a school. Therefore, the dispute between the complainant and the opposite parties is not covered under service as defined under the 'Act'. As such, complaint is not maintainable. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the opposite parties cited (i) 2012(3) CPC 615 case titled P.T Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. (ii) 2010 (2) CPC 696 (SC) case titled Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions. The complainant is claiming refund of caution money paid by him at the time of admission of his two daughters. The opposite parties is a school. Therefore before proceeding further it is to be examined whether the dispute between the parties falls under the 'Act' or not. In the case of Maharashi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur (supra), the dispute was with the University regarding issuance of degree of B.Ed. It was observed that University is holding examination and awarding education degree discharging its statutory duties. Examination fee does not come under the category of consideration for providing a service. In the case of P.T. Koshi & Anr., Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., (supra), it was observed that matter relating to admission fee is a statutory function of educational institution and it is not covered under 'service' under the 'Act'. These observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are squarely applicable to the fact of this case also. In this case also, the matter is regarding admission fee paid by the complainant as caution money at the time of admission of his daughters. Therefore, this matter is not covered under service under the 'Act'. As such, the complaint is not maintainable. In the result, this complaint is hereby dismissed. The cheques (2 nos) produced by the opposite parties are ordered to be returned to them against receipt. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 19-11-2015 (M.P.Singh Pahwa ) President (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member (Jarnail Singh ) Member
| |
