Date of Filing:16.10.2007 Date of Order: 10.01.2008 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2008 PRESENT Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 2101 OF 2007 Mr. Ravi Ranjan Kumar, S/o Prabhash Prasad Choudhary, R/A A-1 Owners Court, Kasavanahalli Main Road, Bangalore-560035. Complainant V/S 1) Smart Kitz, Playschool, No.21, Owners Court, Kasavanahalli Main Road, Bangalore-560035, Represented by its Principal Mrs. Indira Mahadevan. 2) Mrs. Indira Mahadevan, Principal, Smart Kitz, Playschool, No.21, Owners Court, Kasavanahalli Main Road, Bangalore-560035. Opposite Parties ORDER This is complaint filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming refund of Rs.16,600/- with interest and compensation. The facts of the case are that, the complainant is a father of minor Raj Ravi Choudhary. The complainant approached opposite party for admission for his son Raj Ravi Choudhary as opposite party opened Playschool in the residential Colony of Owners Court in Kasavanahalli. Sum of Rs.16,600/- was collected towards Admission fees and Upfront fees for a period of six months. At the time of admission Raj Ravi Choudhary was 22 months old child. The copy of receipt is produced. At the time of admission complainant was informed that there should be many other children joining the playschool and child would be given complete care and comfort. Complainant was shocked and disturbed to notice that his son starting complaining about the teachers from the very first day. Complainant was surprised to see that his sons pant was not changed even though he wet it and was sent back in the same state. Complainant noticed that same thing continued even the subsequent days. There was no effort to keep the child dry and comfortable. The complainant shocked to see that Playschool had only three children in the entire school. The opposite parties were putting his child to great stress and not taking care of his son. The welfare of his son was in danger and he had to remove from the school. The complainant approached opposite parties in mid August-2007 with a request that Admission and Tuition fee paid by him should be refunded, but opposite parties vehemently refused to refund the fee. It is unjustified on the part of the opposite parties to withhold the Admission and Tuition fees collected in an arbitrary manner. Complainant has sent a registered letter requesting to refund the amount. Opposite parties did not choose to reply the letter. Hence, the complaint. 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. Defense version filed by opposite parties. The complainant had agreed to the fee structure and submitted the signed admission form. Even till December fees would be Rs.16,600/-. Options were open to complainant, he could have admitted his son elsewhere, but he opted to put in Smart Kidz fully aware of fee structure, terms and conditions. On the first day the complainants son was dropped by a lady. The boy cried for long time. The centre has 4 kids and it started only in June this year. The centre is new, it takes time to pickup. Children are given lots of love and personal care. Complainants wife asked for refund of fee to which opposite parties told that as per policy the fee cannot be refunded. The complainant is fully aware of the rules of the centre and he had agreed when the application was signed. For all these reasons stated above, the opposite party has prayed to dismiss the complaint. 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Arguments are heard. 4. The point for consideration is:- Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of fee paid to the opposite parties? REASONS 5. It is also an admitted case of the parties that, the son of the complainant Raj Ravi Chudhary had been admitted to the centre of opposite parties. It is also admitted fact that the complainant has paid admission and tuition fee of Rs.16,600/- on 30/7/2007. The complainant has produced the receipt for having paid the amount. The opposite parties never disputed the payment of Rs.16,600/- made by the complainant. The opposite parties have produced a letter dated 27th August-2007 addressed to the parents and as per this letter it is clear that the son of complainant Raj Ravi Choudhary had attended the centre for 9 days since the time of joining to the centre. The opposite parties also admitted during the course of hearing the boy had attended their Playschool only for 9 days. The fee of Rs.16,600/- was paid at the time of admission for the academic year 2007-08 i.e., for a period of six months. The opposite party is relying on the terms and conditions of admission. It has been argued by the opposite parties that, once admission is granted there will be no refund of any payment for any reason and this condition had been mentioned in the registration form under the heading important points to be read and signed. Opposite parties argued that the complainant has signed the registration form on 1/8/2007 by understanding the terms and conditions. Therefore, it is the case of the opposite party that, even if the son of the complainant is taken back from the school, the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount. The argument advanced by the opposite parties cannot be accepted in law at all. There is no statutory rule in respect of non-refunding the fee. The condition printed in the admission form is a unilateral condition. It has no force of law. On the said condition it cannot be denied the refund of the fee to the complainant. Admittedly, the son of the complainant had attended the Playschool only for 9 days. This fact had been admitted by the opposite parties. Therefore, it could be just fair and reasonable on the part of the opposite parties to deduct about 1,000/- or 2,000/- rupees and the remaining amount has to be paid back to the complainant. This should be a just fair and reasonable attitude of the opposite parties. The opposite parties cannot take unfair advantage of taking Rs.16,600/- without providing any service to the child. In support of the above proposition of law we refer a decision of Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai reported in Consumer Protection Judgment IV (2007) CPJ in SRI. GANGA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL (APPELLANT) V/S C. NITHYA(MINOR) (RESPONDANT) wherein it has been held as under:- Consumer Protection Act,1986-Sections2(1)(g) and 14(1)(c)-Education-Fees refund-Complainant studied in school for 19 days-Stopped voluntarily-Refund of 1/3rd of amount paid by complainant plus cost awarded by Forum-Order upheld in appeal. Again Para-8 has been observed as under:- The complainant had studied in the school just for 19 days. The opposite party did not send her out of school. She had stopped voluntarily. In III (2002) CPJ 158(NC), it has been held by the National Commission imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration is a service and falls within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. In a decision reported in 1996 CPJ 37, the National Commission had ordered refund of 1/3rd of the amount deposited by the student irrespective of the rule contained in the prospectus of the institution. In III (2002) CPJ5, where there was a withdrawal from school by the student the District Forum directed refund of fee after deduction Rs.465, the State Commission held that even in the case of voluntary withdrawal the opposite party was liable to refund examination and security fee in full and other charges in proportionate. Taking the ratio of those decisions into consideration, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund 1/3rd of the amount collected from the complainant plus Rs.500 as cost. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. So in view of the above proposition of law, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties shall be directed to refund Rs.14,600/- to the complainant immediately out of the amount received from the complainant immediately. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed pay Rs.14,600/- to the complainant immediately. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2008. Order accordingly, MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
