DATE OF FILING : 10-03-2014.
DATE OF S/R : 11-04-2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 23-06-2014.
Srimon Kalyan Bose,
21/15, Balai Mistry Lane, P.O. B. Garden,
P.S. Shibpur, District –Howrah,
PIN – 711103.------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. Rainbow Academy ( Kid Zee )
38/2, Kalabagan Lane, Santragachhi,
Howrah – 711104.
2. Zee Learn Limited, having its
(a) Registered office at Continental Building,
135, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400018.
(b) Corporate / Head Office
at Fun Republic, ( 6th floor ),
Link Road, Andheri ( West ), Mumbai - 400 053.
(c ) Eastern Zonal Office at Mullen Street, 3rd floor,
near Nepal Sweets, Kolkata – 700020. -------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. Complainant, Srimon Kalyan Bose, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C. P.
Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to return the amount of Rs. 10,970/- as admission charge and to pay compensation and litigation costs.
2. Brief fact of the case is that the complainant, Srimon Kalyan Bose, admitted his son, Atrik Bose to o.p.’s institution on payment of Rs. 10,970/- in total on 17-12-2012 in Nursery Class. And the class was scheduled to he started in March, 2013. And school authority also provided some school related articles for his son like school uniform, books, pencil etc. Meanwhile, his son was selected by another reputed school of Kolkata for Nursery – I. Accordingly, his son was admitted to this new Kolkata based school on 18-03-2013. And immediately on 20-03-2013, he wrote a request letter to o.p. to refund the admission amount of Rs. 10,970/- paid on 17-12-2012 to them vide Annexure letter dated 20-03-2013. He further stated that as the classes at o.p.’s institution were to be started on and from 18-03-2013, complainant’s son never attended the class in o.p.’s institution. On the letter dated 20-03-2013 written by the complainant, o.p. refused to refund the admission amount of Rs. 10,970/- on the ground that once complainant had received the article like school bag, uniform etc., refund could not be made possible. Thereafter, complainant filed a complaint with C .A. & F.B.P. on 25-10-2013 and a date was fixed on 26-11-2013 with the Director of the o.p. And Director also refused to make any refund stating some reasons. But those explanations given by O.P. 1 could not satisfy the complainant and he was compelled to file this instant complaint before this Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.
3. Notices were served upon o.ps. O.P. 1 appeared and filed written version but O.P. 2 never appeared nor filed any w/v. Accordingly, case was heard on contest against O.P. 1 and exparte against O.P. 2.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the written version filed by o.p. 1 and noted its contents. O.P. 1 has given the detailed list of charges totaling Rs. 10,970/- taken by them from the complainant. And the amount does not include any thing as admission charge. It is stated by the o.p. 1 that as complainant blocked a seat for his son for the session 2013-2014, that seat remained vacant by his son’s withdrawal from the school. Because through out the year no further admission was taken. And by that o.p. 1 also suffered a total expenditure of Rs. 10,800/- for 12 months as o.p. 1 did not get any tuition fee from the complainant which was @ 900/- per month. Here we take a pose, in any school, teachers’ payment does not depend on a particular student’s withdrawal from that school. Complainant got a better opportunity for his son in a Higher Secondary School. We all know how difficult it is to get admission in a reputed higher secondary school. So, definitely he was to avail himself of that golden opportunity. And we are also very very surprised to know that such a fair amount of Rs. 10,970/- does not include any tuition fee or admission fee but includes some other fees. O.P. 1 has not also annexed the copy the class-register to show that the said seat remained idle for the entire session and any terms and condition regarding the admission and/or withdrawal of a student. In absence of any terms and condition governing the admission and withdrawal procedure, we are to adjudicate the issue on the basis of necessity. We all know a lot of money is required for a student education. Moreover, complainant has stated in his affidavit in reply that verbally o.p. 1 confessed that the said seat was filled in by another student. However, in our opinion an educational institution should be run on certain principle. At the very beginning of the session, complainant withdrew his son’s name, o.p. 1 did not invest any labour for that student why they should at all retain the amount taken as session fee and development fee? At the best O.P. 1 is entitled to deduct some amount for supplying school-kit and that amount should not exceed an amount of Rs.1970/-. But complainant has not paid any amount to O.P. 2. Accordingly, we hold that it is a fit case to allow the prayers of the complainant against O.P. 1. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 127 of 2014 ( HDF 127 of 2014 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.P. 1 and dismissed against O.P. 2 without cost.
That the O.P. no. 1 is directed to refund Rs. 9000/- to the complainant within one month from this order.
No order as to compensation but the complainant do get an award of Rs. 500/- as litigation cost.
That the o.p. no. 1 further directed to pay the aforesaid amount totaling Rs. 9,500/- to the complainant within one month from this order i.d., the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha )
Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
