BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.1246 OF 2009 AGAINST C.C.No.54 OF 2009 DISTRICT FORUM-I HYDERABAD
Between:
1. The Principal Abhyasa Residential
Public School, NH-7, Toopran,
Medak Dist., AP-324
2. The Chairman
Satya Sai Sanskruthi Educational Society
H.No.10-3-183, St.John’s Road, Sec’bad-3
Appellants/opposite parties
A N D
Sri N.Nagasai Mrudul
Minor rep. by his defacto Guardian and
his father Sri N.Umesh Kumar S/o N.Gopala
Krishna, R/o S.No.13, Shrooff Bazar, Kurnool
Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellants Sri Manu
Counsel for the Respondent Sri Yogender Singh
QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. The opposite parties filed the appeal against the order of the District Forum whereby they had been directed to refund the amount of Rs.37,000/- to the complainant.
2. The respondent was admitted in VI Standard with the first appellant’s institution on 15.6.2008. At the time of admission the respondent’s father had paid an amount of `71,800/- on various dates till 22.4.2008. The respondent sought refund of the amount as he had withdrawn his admission from the appellant no.1 institute on health grounds.
3. The respondent contended that he attended to the class for one day and on being fell sick, he had cancelled his admission and sought for refund of the amount which was not paid to him consequent upon which he was compelled to issue notice on 24.7.2008. It is submitted that the appellant no.1 had issued reply stating that the respondent was not entitled to the refund of the amount in view of the rules as also by the letter issued by his father which was drafted to the dictation of the first appellant and in view of the eagerness the respondent’s father was of, to see the respondent who was suffering from homesickness.
4. The appellants contended that the complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of the C.P.Act and the respondent is not entitled to the refund of the fees as per the rules governing remittance of school fees printed at page no.24 of the prospectus for 2008-2009 and also the receipts issued to the respondent contain that the fees is not refundable. The respondent’s father had given undertaking on 9.4.2008 at the time of seeking admission of the respondent that he would not seek refund of the fees on withdrawal of the respondent from the first appellant’s institute. The respondent’s father had sent fax that the respondent’s mother fell sick. The respondent had not sought for issue of transfer certificate till filing of the complaint before the District Forum. The appellant’s institute runs on no profit no loss basis. The amount was collected in accordance with the rules to be followed by the appellant’s and the respondent as also the respondent’s parents and according to the rules the respondent is liable to pay the balance amount of `40,000/- for the year 2008-09.
5. The respondent’s father has filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A5. The appellant no.1 has filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.B1 to B4.
6. The District Forum has allowed the complaint on the premise of the failure of the appellants to prove running of their institute on no profit no loss basis as also the compulsion the respondent’s father to sign the document wherever the appellant no.1 insisted him on doing it.
7. The point for consideration is whether the appellants are not liable to refund the amount `71,800/- to the respondents?
8. The admission of the respondent to the institute of the appellants for the academic year 2008-09 and the respondent’s father withdrawing his son’s admission is not disputed. The respondent’s father sought for refund of the amount on the ground that his only son suffered from homesickness whereas the appellants contended that the respondent’s father requested for refund of the amount not on the ground of homesickness of the respondent for the respondent’s mother suffering from illness. The appellants contended that the respondent is not entitled to refund of the fees in view of the rules and in the light of undertaking given by his father.
9. A perusal of the prospectus issued by the appellants would show that it contains the matter in relation to the importance of counsel for Indian School Certificate, Curriculum Frame Work, Students Information System for Parents etc., At page no.24, the procedure of admission to the school and at page no.28 Rules and Regulations are incorporated. The rules governing remittance of school fees read as:
i) Any student fees under any category – except caution deposit – once paid cannot be refunded to the partnets/stude3nt under any circumstances, even if the student does not attend school for a single day.
10. The student registration card contains undertaking by the parent which goes to show that that he is liable to pay the fees for the entire academic year irrespective of date of withdrawal of the student and in case of withdrawal of the student , caution deposit only can be refunded and not the admission fees even if the student has not been able to attend school for a single day as also that his son’s admission would be cancelled if he fails to pay the fees within one month from the due date, April, 1, August, 1 and December 1, of the academic year.
11. The appellant have pleaded that they have collected the fees as per the rules issued by the Government and processed the admission of the respondent. A prospectus containing the rules by itself cannot be made basis to ascertain that the contents thereof at page no.24 are the rules issued by the government. The appellants have not placed on record copy of the rules and as such the prospectus does not assist the case of the appellants.
12. The appellants referred to the factions mentioned in their letter dated 16.6.2008 and the attending circumstances to contend that respondent’s father cannot claim refund of the fees except the caution deposit in case he has withdrawn his son’s admission from the institute of the appellant no.1. It is contended that as a result of cancellation of the respondent’s admission, the seat fell vacant and they suffered loss as the seat could not be allotted to some other students. Except stating that the seat was not allotted to any other students, the appellants had not placed any evidence on record. The appellant failed to show that the seat vacated by the respondent remained vacant and was not allotted to any other student. In regard to the letter dated 16.6.2008, the respondent’s father has stated that he has written the letter to the dictation of the first appellant. The appellants have not denied the statement of the respondent’s father. The respondent’s father has got issued notice that the respondent was suffering from homesickness and he was compelled to withdraw his son’s admission as the respondent is the only son who could not attend more than one class. The District Forum, in our opinion had rightly held the respondent entitled to the amount of `37,000/- by allowing the appellants to retain prospectus fees of `300/-, Registration fees of `500/-, Admission of `20,000/- and Uniform and accessories fees of `6,000/-. The appellants had collected the tuition in advance. The respondent’s father had paid `40,000/- towards tuition fees for the first term from June 2008 to October 2008. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the District Forum. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.10.08.2011
KMK*
