The complainant Vijay Kumar for himself and being natural guardian of his son Priyanshu (here-in-after referred to as complainants) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Radiant Kids Play Way School and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).
Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that the complainant No.2 is minor son of the complainant No.1. The complainant No.1 has no adverse interest to the minor complainant and he is the natural guardian and next friend of the minor complainant. The complainant No.2 is now studying in UKG with opposite party No.1 i.e. Radiant Kids Play Way School, Bathinda subsidiary of opposite party No.2 Sant Paul's High School, Bathinda, who is running two schools. Opposite party No.3 recognized opposite party Nos.1 and 2 as the same are affiliated with ICSE Board (opposite party No.3). Both these schools (opposite party Nos.1 and 2) are running under the same management. Opposite party No.4 is Govt. Regulating Authority for both the schools of opposite party Nos.1 and 2.
It is alleged that as per rules and government directions, the schools are not allowed to sell the books, stationery, dresses and other items in the school premises. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 sold these items in the school premises and principal/coordinator of opposite party No.1 is compelling to the parents of the children to buy books, stationery, dresses and other items from them. Opposite party No.1 told the complainants that the books and stationery are not allowed to be purchased from outside, as such the school management is forcing the parents to purchase these items from the school. These items sold by opposite party No.1 are printed by its management from their own press, without MRP and without any name of the Publisher.
The complainant No.2 was studying last year with opposite party No.1 in class LKG and now he was promoted in UKG by it for academic year 2015-16. Under compulsory directions of opposite party No.1, the complainants purchased books and stationery for Rs.3960/- printed by it without MRP and without the name of Publisher on 24.3.2015. Opposite party No.1 also charged annual/admission fee of Rs.5500/- from the complainants in UKG class during the session for 2015-16 whereas the complainant No.2 was not new admission. Thereafter opposite party No.1 illegally charged Rs.15,000/- from April to March 2016 as tuition fee whereas there is no tuition for complainant No.2. Opposite party No.1 charged these fees in-connivance with opposite party Nos.2 to 4 without any justification.
It is further alleged that opposite party No.1 sold the books, stationery and other items with its own rates, which are almost on sky side like on Hindi book, which is available in the market at the rate of Rs.100/- of 148 pages and same book of opposite party No.1 of 82 pages is of Rs.350/- per book, which is without MRP wherein there is no name of publisher. The same is Radiant Activity Book-I and others books on same rate of Rs.350/- sold by the management. Opposite party No.1 is charging freight and postage charges Rs.125/- whereas all the publishers send /sold the books on F.O.R and when the MRP is charged, there is no question of freight and postage. Opposite party No.1 is also charging Rs.25/- per book binding whereas the retail market rate is Rs.15/- per book and wholesale rate is Rs.9/- per book. Opposite party No.1 is also charging Rs.5/- per piece for brown cover page and same is available in the market @ Rs.3/- per piece in retail and Rs.2/- in wholesale. The items mentioned in the book list 2015-16 at serial Nos.1 to 7 are very much higher whereas the same are available in the market at low rate i.e. 30-40% less on MRP and with the name of publisher and same are F.O.R i.e. books available to the address of the shop without freight and postage. The copies mentioned as Rs.25/- per copy whereas the same is available in the market in the retail as Rs.20/-.
It is further alleged that the items mentioned in the book list 2015-16 at last as stationery items are also sold on retail rate whereas same is available in the market at low rate i.e. 20% less on MRP and same are F.O.R i.e. available to the address of the shop without freight and postage. The stationery items are in the possession of opposite party No.1 and it is told that these will be given to the child time to time in the academic year 2015-16, but they took full amount in advance from the complainants. When the complainants raised objections regarding the same, the Coordinator and Principle told that they are doing the same from several years and if they have objection then go to another school and they have opened the school for profits and not for any charity. This is the business and they have spent lacs of rupees and now they are earning the same by selling their brand and all this is done under the scheme of opposite party Nos.3 and 4 and under their permission. Opposite party No.1 arbitrarily fixes the price of the books, stationery and other items and parents and school children are compelled to purchase goods at higher costs.
As per complainants, under the weights and measures (Packaged Commodities) rules, all packed goods should carry certain essential information on the contents of the package such as its weight or volume, the name and address of the manufacturer, date of manufacture, maximum retail price (MRP). There is no MRP on the books sold by opposite party No.1. Under the Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act, 2006, certain guidelines have been provided so that the consumer could not be charged over to the maximum price printed on the goods by the manufacturer, but opposite party No.1 in connivance with opposite party Nos.2 to 4 is doing unfair trade practice.
It is further alleged that opposite parties in connivance with each other did not follow the guidelines, which are detailed as under:-
a) Consumer Goods means all goods and items brought in the market for sale and are meant for the use and consumption of the consumers;
b) Cost of production means cost incurred directly or indirectly by the manufacturer in the production of goods;
c) Printing means printing of the cost of production and retail price at a visible place on the product in Hindi and English and the local language of the place it is sold; and
d) Maximum Retail Price means such price at which the product shall be sold in retail and such price shall include all taxes levied on the product.
It is also alleged that the legislation has made it mandatory for the manufacturers to print the cost of production and maximum retail price on packaging of consumer goods so that he could not be get overcharged by the agents/dealers. It is essential for the consumers to know the difference between the maximum retail price and actual price of the goods. The maximum retail price is inclusive of all taxes and a retailer can sell at a price below MRP. Consumer should always look for retailers, who sell below MRP because MRP is the maximum retail price allowed for that commodity and not the actual price and a retailer can well reduce his margin built into MRP. The actual price can be about 10-15 percent lower than MRP. Sometimes the printed MRP is so high that the difference between the selling price and MRP can be as much as 30-50 percent. It is offence to sell at a higher than the market price.
It is further alleged that the complainants lodged complaint with opposite parties and other higher authorities, but all in vain. The parents of the school children also lodged protest against the said misconduct of the schools in Bathinda including opposite party Nos.1 and 2 on 10.4.2015 and matter was reported to the Education Minister and DC of Bathinda, but nothing has been done. Opposite party No.1 is also charging the abovesaid school fees with its own rates and as per its profits in connivance with opposite party Nos.2 to 4.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainants have alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and have requested for directions to opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.3960/- as books and stationery charges; Rs.5500/- as admission/annual fee and Rs.15,000/- as annual tuition fee alongwith interest and claimed Rs.15 lacs as compensation on account of mental agony, pains and sufferings and Rs.50,000/- as cost of complaint. Hence, this complaint.
Upon notice, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and opposite party No.4 appeared through its authorized representative and contested the complaint by filing their separate written version. Previously, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.4. Hence, ex-parte proceedings were taken against it. Subsequently, opposite party No.4 joined the case proceedings through its authorized representative.
Complaint against opposite party No.3 was dismissed as the complainants failed to file correct address of opposite party No.3.
Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have filed their joint written version and raised legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The complainants have no cause-of-action to file this complaint. This Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint. This complaint is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed with special cost of Rs.10,000/- as provided U/s 26 of 'Act'. The complainants are not 'consumer' under 'Act'. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Nos.1 and 2.
On merits, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have controverted all the material averments. However, it is pleaded that both opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are being run under different managements and as an altogether different identity. It is only that under an arrangement opposite party No.1 shall be running the play way and KG classes of opposite party No.2. Both institutions are being run by separate registered societies registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is denied that opposite party No.1 is recognized by opposite party No.3. It is further mentioned that only opposite party No.2 is affiliated to ICSE board i.e. opposite party No.3 and not opposite party No.1. It is denied that opposite party No.1 asked the complainants to buy the books from it.
It is further mentioned that the parents are allowed to buy the books from any place of their choice. The management is not forcing to buy the books, dresses or stationery from the school itself. No books are being printed by the management of opposite party No.1. The books of different publishers, which are found to be good for the children, are being sold in the school at the printed MRP. The school has prepared a certain worksheets for handwriting practice and other learning activities for the academic excellence of the students of this school, which have been developed in the school itself. These worksheets are supplementary in nature and not the books. It is optional for the parents to buy the books and same are being given at their request. The said worksheets have been bound down and these are not the text books as alleged by the complainants.
It is also pleaded that opposite party No.1 does not have any printing press and no books are being printed or published by it. Similarly, no books are being sold at more than the printed MRP. There is no compulsory directions from opposite party No.1 to the complainants or any parents to purchase the books or stationery from the school. The complainants purchased the books and stationery at their own will and without any protest.
It is also mentioned that an amount of Rs.5500/- is towards the admission fee, but towards the annual charges, which are being charged from all the students and towards day to day expenses of the school incurred on conducting various activities, events and functions in the school throughout year.
It is asserted that no amount has been charged illegally. The complainants were aware about the tuition fee to be charged from standard and it was only after understanding the same that they had made this payment. The said fee is being charged from all the students.
It is also pleaded that the complainant No.1 is into the business of book binding and has always been insisting by opposite party No.1 to get the books bound from him. Since the rates of the complainants did not suit opposite party No.1 as such opposite party No.1 refused to get the worksheets bound from him. The complainant No.1 is getting annoyed about the same, he has filed this complaint as a pressure tactic to force opposite party No.1 and in getting the books bound from him.
After controverting all other averments, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
Opposite party No.4 in its written version has also raised legal objections regarding locus-standi; cause-of-action; maintainability of complaint. That there is no privity of contract between the complainants and opposite party No.4 and it has nothing to do with opposite party Nos.1 and 2 nor they are under the control and management of opposite party No.4. As such, this complaint is liable to be dismissed against opposite party No.4.
Further legal objections are that the complainants do not come within the definition of 'consumer' under opposite party No.4 as they have not availed its any services. Complainants have not approached this Forum with clean hands as they have grossly twisted the facts as per their own convenience. This Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide this complaint. The complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainants and is liable to be dismissed with special costs.
On merits, opposite party No.4 controverted all the material averments. It is specifically pleaded that opposite party No.4 is not a regulating authority of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and it has absolutely no concern with the management of opposite party Nos.1 and 2.
Both the parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence.
In support of their claim, the complainants have tendered into evidence affidavits dated 16.4.2015 and 7.7.2015, (Ex.C1 and Ex.C18); photocopy of list of stationery items and receipt, (Ex.C2); photocopy of receipt, (Ex.C3); photocopy of book title, (Ex.C4); photocopy of book list 2015-16, (Ex.C5); photocopy of register notice, (Ex.C6); photocopies of quotations, (Ex.C7 and Ex.C19); photocopies of postal receipts, (Ex.C8 to Ex.C17) and also submitted written arguments.
In order to rebut this evidence, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have tendered into evidence affidavits of Anal Lawrence; Rajbans Singh; Sarabjeet Kaur; Guljeet Singh; Randhir Prashad; Manjinder Singh and Harjeet Kaur, (Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/7); photocopies of certificates, (Ex.OP1/8 and Ex.OP1/9, Ex.OP1/41); photocopies of vouchers, (Ex.OP1/10 to Ex.OP1/12, Ex.OP1/23, Ex.OP1/40); photocopies of payment receipt, (Ex.OP1/13, Ex.OP1/16 to Ex.OP1/22, Ex.OP1/24 to Ex.OP1/27, Ex.OP1/30 and Ex.OP1/31); photocopy of booklist, (Ex.OP1/14); photocopy of certificate, (Ex.OP1/15); photocopy of letter, (Ex.OP1/28); photocopy of invoice, (Ex.OP1/29); photocopy of rate list of books, (Ex.OP1/32); photocopies of books front pages only, (Ex.OP1/33 to Ex.OP1/39) and close the evidence.
Opposite party No.4 tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajinder Singh, (Ex.OP4/1) and submitted written arguments.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
Learned counsel for complainants has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainants that the complainants are not alleging any deficiency in service in the matter in providing education. The complainants have alleged unfair trade practice in the matter of sale of books, stationery and in the matter of charging exorbitant fees and other funds. Therefore, this complaint falls within the purview of 'Act'. The allegations levelled by the complainants are not categorically denied by opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 4. Moreover documentary evidence brought on record by the complainants proves their case. Ex.C2, proves the charges received by opposite party No.1 on the pretext of stationery items. This list includes 20 erasers and 5 sharpeners in addition to pack of clay and box of colours. This Forum can also take judicial notice of the fact that there is no question of using of 20 erasers and 5 sharpeners by small child even during the whole year. Moreover price of these items are exorbitant. Ex.C2, also proves that opposite party No.1 has charged an amount of Rs.3960/- on account of books and stationery. Ex.C3 proves that an amount of Rs.5500/- has been charged as annual charges and Rs.15,000/- has been charged as tuition fee for the whole year. Opposite party No.1 was not to charge the entire amount in lumpsum. Moreover there was no question of charging of Rs.15,000/- as tuition fee from the complainant No.2. Ex.C4 is title cover of book. It is got printed by complainants, but name of printer/printing press and price of items are not mentioned. This is against rules. Ex.C5 is a book list for the year 2015-16, which includes school diary of Rs.100/-; Hindi book of Rs.350/- each. Opposite party No.1 has also claimed freight and postage charges as well as book binding charges. It is also unjustified. The complainants have also placed on record copy of quotation, (Ex.C7), which proves that the items supplied by opposite party No.1 are easily available in other book centre at very low price. Thus, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
It is further submitted that the complainants cannot be denied relief on the plea that the parents of other students have not lodged any complaint with opposite party No.1. The case of the complainants stands fully proved. The complaint be accepted and claimed relief be granted to them.
On the other hand learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 and 2 has submitted that this case has been filed against opposite party No.1, which is a school. Educational institutions are not providing any services. These institutions did not come under the purview of 'Act'. The complaint is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground.
To support his submissions, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 and 2 has cited 2012(3) CPC 615 P.T Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. and decision of our Hon'ble State Commission has rendered in First Appeal No.1385 of 2013, Decided on 10.6.2015 in case title Redcliffe School Vs. Shamil Dhiman.
It is further submitted by opposite party Nos.1 and 2 that the complainants have not approached before this Forum with clean hands as they have filed this complaint with ulterior motive and malafide intention. The complainants were already aware of the fact that the stationery is provided by opposite party No.1 at the school. They were also aware about the charges of tuition fees and other annual charges being received by opposite party No.1. The complainant No.2 was already admitted in the school in the previous year also. Therefore, despite knowing all the procedure, the complainants opted to get admission in the school of opposite party No.1. As such, they cannot alleged any unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Moreover there is nothing on record to prove that opposite party No.1 is charging more than MRP and there is also nothing on record to show that opposite party No.1 is having any printing press. Opposite party No.1 has supplied stationery articles to the children for the convenience of children and their parents. A number of parents have filed affidavits, (Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/7) whereby they have deposed that no unfair trade practice is adopted by opposite party No.1. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
To support his submissions, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 and 2 has cited 1992(2) CPJ 591 Smt.N.Taneja and another Vs. Calcutta District Forum and others and also cited 1995(2) CPJ 35 Kailash Chandra Singhal Vs. Principal, Sophya Girls School.
We have given careful consideration to these submissions and gone through the cases cited by learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 and 2.
Before coming to the main controversy, it is to be seen that whether the complainants fall within the definition of 'consumer' under 'Act' or not. In case of P.T Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:-
“1) In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010(11) SCC 159=2010(2) CPC 696 SC wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission fees etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”
In case of Redcliffe School Vs. Shamil Dhiman (Supra), the material allegations of the complainant was that opposite party (Redcliffe School in this case) charged Rs.12,500/- as admission fees and Rs.500/- as registration fees. Thereafter the complainant was asked to deposit halfty amount in the name of admission fees/fund/annual fund etc. and allegations of the complainant were that opposite party was indulged in unfair trade practice. After relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case P.T Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. (Supra), the appeal of opposite party (school) was accepted and complaint was dismissed by Hon'ble State Commission.
These above observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and State Commission are fully applicable in the case in hand. Therefore, the conclusion is that such matters cannot be entertained by this Forum under 'Act'.
There is other aspects of case also.The material allegations of the complainants are regarding charging of hefty amount in the name of admission fee/fund/annual fund etc.and regarding sale of books, stationery at exorbitant rate. The complainants have admitted that the complainant No.2 was studying with opposite party No.1 in previous year in class LKG. Therefore, the complainants were fully aware of the fees etc. and charges for stationery etc. Moreover opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have placed on record payment receipt, (Ex.OP1/13) whereby the complainant Priyanshu Garg paid an amount of Rs.2960/- for book and stationery. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have also produced on record book list for the year 2015, which proves that opposite party No.1 used to charge freight and postage charges. Therefore, the inference is that the complainants were aware of the fact that these charges are to be paid by them in UKG class. As such, they cannot allege unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties when they have got admission after being aware of the entire procedure.
For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is without merits and is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.
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:-
18-02-2016
(M.P Singh Pahwa)
President
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
(Jarnail Singh)
Member
