Order No. 11 date: 21-07-2017
Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 22-08-2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Howrah in C.C. No. 195/2014.
In a nutshell, case of the Complainant is that his son got admitted at the OP Institution in Class XI on 22-05-2013. For this purpose, he deposited a sum of Rs. 13,700/- under due receipt. Thereafter, he paid another sum of Rs. 3,200/- towards cost of school uniform on 24-05-2013. Subsequently, before starting of the session, the Complainant intimated the disinclination of his son to study at the said Institution and accordingly, he prayed for refund of the deposited sum vide letter dated 16-08-2013, but to no avail. So, the complaint.
As the OP did not turn up to contest the case, the case was heard and decreed ex parte.
Decision with reasons
In view of the objection raised by the Appellant over terming the dispute as a ‘consumer dispute’, let us first figure out what construe a ‘complaint’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
According to Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, "complaint" means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that—
(i) “an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice has been adopted by any trader or service provider;
(ii) the goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by him; suffer from one or more defects;
(iii) the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him suffer from deficiency in any respect;
(iv) a trader or service provider, as the case may be, has charged for the goods or for the service mentioned in the complaint a price in excess of the price –
(a) fixed by or under any law for the time being in force
(b) displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods ;
(c) displayed on the price list exhibited by him by or under any law for the time being in force;
(d) agreed between the parties;
(v) goods which will be hazardous to life and safety when used or being offered for sale to the public,-
(A) in contravention of any standards relating to safety of such goods as required to be complied with, by or under any law for the time being in force;
(B) if the trader could have known with due diligence that the goods so offered are unsafe to the public;
(vi) services which are hazardous or likely to be hazardous to life and safety of the public when used, are being offered by the service provider which such person could have known with due diligence to be injurious to life and safety.
With a view to obtaining any relief provided by or under this Act.”
Now let us discuss whether the present dispute meets any of the aforesaid criteria. The unequivocal answer to this pertinent question would be ‘no’. This is because nowhere in the petition of complaint any such allegation has been made that there was any shortcoming, imperfection on the part of the Appellant Institution in rendering due service to the son of the Respondent No. 1 or that it was obligatory on the part of the Appellant to refund the deposited fee on demand, but it did not do so.
Undisputedly, the son of the Respondent on his own accord decided to withdraw himself from the Appellant Institution for the reasons best known to him. Education is a serious matter; one should not make a fun of it by resorting to whimsical means.
There is no denying the fact the educational institutions, especially those in the private sector, meet their administrative expenditure through the fees deposited by incumbent students. Now, if a student rescues himself at the last moment without any valid reason and seeks refund of the deposited fees, it puts the educational institution in a fix as it is easier said than done to fill up a vacant seat at the eleventh hour.
Considering all these aspects, we find no infirmity with the decision of the Appellant Institution to deny refund of the deposited fees. The Ld. District Forum at its wisdom decided that by refusing to refund the deposited fees, the Appellant committed gross deficiency in service. However, in deciding so, it completely overlooked the whimsical attitude of the Respondent/his son who did not even bother to cite a cogent ground for seeking refund of the deposited fee. This is not done. Merely because a complaint case is heard ex parte, there is no reason to accept the contention of the contesting party at its face value. It is the documentary proof that should matter in deciding the fate of a dispute - nothing more; nothing less. The impugned order being not sustainable in the eye of law, the same cannot be upheld.
Accordingly, the Appeal succeeds.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That A/120/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest without any cost. The impugned order is hereby set aside.
