D.O.F:27/10/2018
D.O.O:10/03/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.174/2018
Dated this, the 10th day of March 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Ibrahim.C.K, aged 52 years
S/o C.M Kunhi Haji,
R/at Baithul Abdulla, Muttathody : Complainant
Nayamarmoola, Kasaragod – District
(Adv: Shajid Kammadam)
And
Twaiba Educational Group
H.O Indira Nagar, Chengala, Kasaragod : Opposite Party
Rep by its Authorized Person
(Adv: B. Aboobaker)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The Complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act .
The case of the complainant is that being attracted by the advertisement of Opposite Party the complainant took admission for his two children to Opposite Party institution. At the time of admission Opposite Party promised high standard of education, Islamic value, qualified teachers. Opposite Party demanded Rs. 12,000/- as capitation fee. But class began in a residential building. Quality of education was very poor. In September 2018, school authorities not allowed his younger daughter to appear for exam. But chairman summoned the child aged 9 years to the office at 1 PM and verbally abused her by saying that, “ Are you eating shit and made her to stand up to 4.15 Pm in bare foot. Not supplied water. Complainant asked for TC but not issued thus she lost one year. The act of Opposite Party is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service which caused mental agony, physical strain and emotional insult. Complainant is seeking Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation and cost of the litigation.
2. The Opposite Party filed written version denying the allegations and states that complainant is not a consumer and not maintainable at law. Very same complaint is filed as CRMP 9015/2018 on the file of Kerala State Commission for protection of child right. Further stated that Opposite Party never took any initiate nor encouraged the complainant to admit any of his children in the school of Opposite Party, fees payable to every student is Rs. 1000/- per month and school van fees is also payable. The school fees was in arrears. It was informed to the parents. But arrears still not paid. It was telephonically informed to mother that arrears of fees to be cleared before examination during September. And there are about Five hundred students in the school no parents raised any grievance for claiming fees. The Opposite Party denied they illegally demanded capitation fees or that in receipt it is referred to as working fund or that Opposite Party supplied apparels at unreasonable price or that no protest was made believing the benefits conferred to on his children. School building has no lift facility system school is having landed property. It is denied that the school authorities not allowed his younger child to appear for the exam or that the chairman summened the child and verbally abused her stating that are you eating shit or made her to stand up there to 4.15 Pm. For TC Opposite Party replied that TC will be issued in case written request is made to the school authorities. Though fees arrears not paid student is permitted to site in September examination. And the only idea in filing the case is to make money and there is no basis or justifiable reason to claim any compensation. The complainant and child did not suffer any loss or deficiency in service from the service of Opposite Party. The school enjoys good repute, with good and well qualified experienced teachers and infrastructure and good ambience for paying school fees, its receipts are issued van charges are deposited.
Complainant filed chief affidavit and was cross examined as Pw1 , Ext A1 to A3, and Ext C1 marked. The complainant and Opposite Party produced citations Opposite Party filed IA 55/21 raising the issue of maintainability of the complaint. The CDRC ordered that it will be considered at final order.
- Whether complaint is maintainable against Opposite Party?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service of the Opposite Party in delivering their service in education? And if so whether complainant entitled for compensation? And if so for what reliefs?
The Complainants case is that Opposite Party has not given proper service to his children as promised. Opposite Party denies the allegations.
In Bihar school Examinations Board Vs Suresh vide AIR 210 SC 93 educational institutes do not, though the performance of educational activities, render any service, in respect of which a complaint of deficiency could be maintained, and that consumer Forums does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate them.
So also decision in 2012 decision in 2012 Supreme SC 942 in P.T Koshy and Anr Vs Ellen charitable trust and other.
Supreme court held, that educational institution do not, though the performance of educational activities, render any service, in respect of which a complaint of deficiency could be maintained and that consumer forums did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate them.
Further more even on merits students is not examined as a witness Pw1 is having only hearsay knowledge of the case. Daughter did not complaint. He does not remember those dates of compelling to stand for non- payment of fees. No hurdles for admission to his students. He disowns contents of his own affidavit. Even receipts produced by him does not contain any signature of Opposite Party.
Considering the contentions in the complaint evidence given and nature of and circumstances of the case, complaint is not maintainable at law and even complaint is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
In the result complaint is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1-Brochure
A2 Series- Receipts
A3- Order Dt: 24/06/2020
C1- Commission Report
Witness Examined
Pw1- C.K. Ibrahim
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
