Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/353/2014

Bhupender singh s/o Sh.Surinder Singh, - Complainant(s)

Versus

St. Lawrence International School, - Opp.Party(s)

Rajpal Kait

03 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                              Complaint No. 353 of 2014.

                                                                                              Date of institution: 26.08.2014.

                                                                                              Date of decision:  03.11.2016.

Sh. Bhupender Singh aged about 30 years son of Sh. Surinder Singh, resident VPO Kalawar, Sub Tehsil Mustafabad, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                        …Complainant.

                                                Versus

St Lawrence International School, Gulab Nagar-Pabni Road, Jagadhri District Yamuna Nagar, through Principal/Director.       

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             …Respondent

 

BEFORE:           SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                          SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

Present: Sh. Raj Pal Kait, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. R.C.Sharma, Advocate, counsel for respondent.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Bhupinder Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present case, as alleged by the complainant, are that respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) is running a school in question under the name and style St. Lawrence International Shool, Gulab Nagar-Pabni Road, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. On 28.03.2014, the complainant visited the office of OP and got registration in the school of his ward namely Rudar Partap and later on he has got admission in the OP school in KG Class and deposited the fee for admission alongwith other charges, i.e. security amount etc. Hence, there exist a relationship of consumer and suppler between the parties. The OP school had also sold the books and uniform to the ward of the complainant and OP school have charged Rs. 2952/- for the same. The ward of the complainant daily complained to the complainant at home and complainant himself has also checked the school work as well as home work of his ward and found so many mistakes in home work as well as school work. Due to that, complainant approached the OP school many times in this regard but the OP had not listened the genuine request of the complainant. Ultimately, the complainant has withdrawn his ward from the OP school and got admitted in other school. After that, complainant approached so many times to the OP school to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant alongwith interest but the OP school kept on lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. A legal notice dated 24.05.2014 was also issued but the same was not replied. Lastly prayed for directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service on the part of Op and mental tension, harassment, agony, mental torture and litigation expenses etc. and the amount deposited by the complainant.

3.                     In support of his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Receipt of Rs. 500/- on account of registration fee as Annexure C-1, Receipt of amounting to Rs. 5000/- dated 31.3.2014 on account of admission fee as Annexure C-2, Receipt of Rs. 3800/- pending fee as Annexure C-3, Receipt of amounting to Rs. 3180/- on account of monthly fee for April and May 2014 dated 02.04.2014 as Annexure C-4, Legal notice dated 24.05.2014 as Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

4.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties as per case law titled as P.T. Koshy & Another Versus Ellen Charitable Trust & Others, 2012 (3) CPC page 615 Supreme Court; complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint; present complaint is false and frivolous which has been filed against the OP to tarnish its reputation and to grab false claim; this Forum have no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint and on merit all the contents of the complaint were denied and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     In support of his version, counsel for the Op tendered into evidence prospectus of the OP school as Annexure R-1 and Admission Form as Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

6                             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP. It is not disputed that ward of the complainant got admission in the school of the OP in KG class and deposited the registration fee of Rs. 500/- and admission fee of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 3180/- on account of monthly fee for the month of April and May 2014, which is duly evident from the copy of receipt Annexure C-1, C-2 and C-4. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the Op School was not up to standard and his ward as well as complainant himself found many mistakes in the home work as well as school work due to that complainant shifted his ward in other school. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get the refund of entire amount deposited with the OP school and also entitled to get compensation and harassment  but this plea of the complainant have no weightage and is not tenable as no cogent evidence has been placed on file to prove the same. We have perused the prospectus Annexure R-1 wherein it has been specifically mentioned under the head of withdrawal/removal from the school at page No.7 that:- (i) if a child has to be withdrawn from the school, parents are requested to give one (1) months’ notice in writing, failing which, one (1) month’s fee will be charged in lieu thereof. Exception may be made in case of sudden transfer of Government or military personnel.(ii) Those who leave the school in the month of May, must have to pay the fee for the month of June.

8.                     We have also perused the application form Annexure R-2, wherein also it has been mentioned that “I also understand that prior application needs to be given to the school in case I wish to withdraw my child” and “I also declared that I have read the form/ prospectus carefully and abide by all the rules and regulations”.

9.                     From the above noted rules and regulations mentioned in the prospectus as well as admission form, it is clear that complainant is not entitled to get any refund of any amount. The complainant has himself admitted that he shifted the child/ward to other school at his own wishes/ sweet will. Moreover, the Hon’ble National Commission has held in case titled as Ram deobaba Engineering College Vs. Sushant Yuvraj Rode and another 1994(3) CPJ page 160 that the Education College Fee- Refund of- Complainant- Paid admission fees after obtaining admission, he also got admission in another college. He requested to the first College to refund the admission fee. Held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the college. Complainant withdraw from the collage voluntarily, Non-refund of amission fee is not a deficiency in service- Admission fee is a consideration for admission and service and the same view has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission as well Hon’ble Supreme Court  in so many authorities titled as P.T. Koshy & Another Versus Ellen Charitable Trust & Others, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22532/2012 decided on 9.8.2012, Maharishi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur, Civil Appeal No. 6807 of 2008 decided on 19.7.2010 and Surbhi Singh vs. The Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, W.P(C ) No. 1820 of 2012 decided on 28.01.2014 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

                        In view of the fact noted above and after going through the law referred above, we are of the considered view that the complainant has totally failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP School and further in view of the law cited above, the complaint is not maintainable.

10.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 03.11.2016.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                  MEMBER