Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/412/2018

Student-Parents Welfare Association - Complainant(s)

Versus

St.John Matriculation higher Secondary School. - Opp.Party(s)

A.Muniraja

24 Jan 2020

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  21.09.2012

                                                               Order pronounced on:  24.01.2020

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

FRIDAY THE 24^th DAY OF JANUARY  2020

 

C.C.NO.412/2018

 

M/s. Student – Parents Welfare Association,

Rep. by its President,

Mr.S.Sridhar, having office at

No.352, Sheik Abdullah Nagar 1^st Main Road,

Virugambakkam, Chennai – 600 092.

 

                                                                                     …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

1.M/s. St.John Matriculation Higher Secondary School,

Rep. by its Correspondent,

No.15, New Colony,

Alwarthirunagar, Chennai –600 087.

 

2. The Principal,

St.John Matriculation Higher Secondary School,

No.15, New Colony,

Alwarthirunagar, Chennai –600 087.

 

 

 

.....Opposite Parties

Counsel for Complainant                         : Mr. A.Muniraja, M.Manikandhan,  

                                                                      Akila.S

 

Counsel for  opposite parties                      : Mr.S.Sivashanmugam, D.Kalaiselvi

 

ORDER

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

           The complainant  is the president of students-parents association of St. John’s matriculation Higher secondary  School. It is a registered society  and its members are parents of the students studying in the opposite parties  Management school. The opposite parties compelled  their students to buy note books along with text-books. Inspite of request from complainant the opposite parties  were reluctant to forgo the  combo sales and decline to sell text books alone. The note books supplied by the opposite parties have no MRP rates printed anywhere in it. Hence the complainant and members were forced to buy note books on the rate fixed by the opposite parties which are more higher than market price  and actual cost of the note books available in the market with the same quality. On complaining the matter before Director of Matriculation School and after their inspection, oral instructions were given to them to reduce the price of the note books and to give a break-up figure. But till date no break up figure was given to the complainant. The opposite parties have received the amount for text books and  note-books.  Till  date they have neither issued note- books nor refunded the amount for 11^th  and 12^th   Standard which caused great hardship to the students. The opposite parties  have the habit of rounding off the amount to the next higher of multiple of ten instead of nearest positive integer for the payments. In this way opposite parties  have gained highest amount from the members. The opposite parties  are also demanding the students to buy tie  and belt every year compulsorily from them at the arbitrarily fixed price.  The right of option in buying at the desired place is declined by opposite parties  which creates great hardship. The  opposite parties  are guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The opposite parties  do not have any association with the complainant  and there is no such association existing other than on record. The opposite parties  have facilitated the students to procure note books and text books without any hustle from the market by outsourcing. In order to maintain uniformity among students the note books were ordered through a reputed company and distributed the books to the students at the normal price. The Director, Joint Director and the Inspector of Schools visited the opposite parties and after verification they have approved the distribution of articles by outsourcing. Hence there is no irregularity on the part of opposite parties . The receipts for the articles will be issued only by the traders to whom the work is entrusted. One  Mr. Salmon Harith is creating lots of trouble and he is only behind the complainants illegally black mailing opposite parties. Book selling is not the business of the opposite parties  and opposite parties  have not collected any money from the students for the same.  Hence there is no issue of refunding the money. The fee for 2012-2013 was not fixed and hence tentative amount for fee is only collected and so many students have paid tendering exact cash amount .If even Rs.5/- is paid in excess it must have been compensated  by some other article for exchange. The opposite parties have got the strength of 1500 students. The opposite parties never indulged in cheap practice. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and unfair trade practice and the complaint is to be dismissed.

 

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Is the complainant a Consumer?

          2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1 

          Fee paid receipts issued by the school for 25 students are marked as Ex.A1 series. Fee demand notice issued is marked as Ex.A2. Books and note books list issued by the opposite parties  are marked as Ex.A3.Quotation obtained from open market for the note-books of the same quality issued by the opposite parties  on two different dates  are  Ex.A4 and Ex.A5. Society registration certificate is Ex.A6.   Wrapper of  the note books on both its sides are Ex.A7. Ex.A8 is the order of cancellation of recognition for opposite parties school. Letter sent by the National Commission for protection of child rights is in Ex.A9. Ex.A10 is the fee notice for the note-books for the academic 2014-2015.

05. The opposite parties  have submitted 2011(4) CTC87 SC in State of Tamil Nadu Vs Shyam Sunder by pointing out that Education is not a service and the student is not a consumer as the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint.  As per Ex.A6 the association is called as student- parents welfare association and it is registered. There is no document filed by the complainant  for his representation on behalf of the association as its President. As per the citations submitted on behalf of  the opposite parties   there is no document filed to prove that the opposite parties had involved in any trade activities and entered into contract of service with the complainant.  It may be a self style association  for the welfare of the students  and no proof  is filed that the complainant’s representative capacity as  President of that  association.  There is no privity of contract between the parties. In the absence of any service providing activity by the opposite parties  the complainant  is not maintainable before Consumer Forum. As per the Judgments submitted Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service. Therefore in the matters as alleged by the complainant there cannot be any question of deficiency of service and the complaints fails on that point and the complaint is liable to be dismissed and point No .1. is answered accordingly.

06. POINT NO.2 & 3:

          Since the complaint is not maintainable before this forum there is no necessity to go further for discussions for the point No2. The complainant  is not entitled to any relief  and the complaint is dismissed.

          In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 24^th  day of January 2020.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 22.05.2012                   Fee paid Receipt issued by the school (25 students)

Ex.A2 dated 07.06.2012                   Fee Demand Notice

Ex.A3 dated 07.06.2012                   Books & Note books list issued by the opposite

                                                    Parties

 

Ex.A4 dated 01.09.2012                   Quotation obtained from open market for the note

                                                  books of same quality issued by the opposite parties

 

Ex.A5 dated 17.09.2012                   Quotation obtained from open market for the note

                                                  books of same quality issued by the opposite parties

 

Ex.A6 dated 26.11.2010                   Society Registration Certificate

 

Ex.A7 dated NIL                     Wrapper (Front and Back) of Note Books

 

Ex.A8 dated 05.03.2014                   Order of Cancellation of Recognition of the

                                                 opposite party school

 

Ex.A9 dated 26.12.2012                   Letter sent by the National Commission for

                                                Protection of Child Rights to the Director of

                                                Matriculation Schools

 

Ex.A10 dated NIL                   Fee Notice for the note books for the academic year 2014 - 2015

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

                                                ….. NIL ……

                                               

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT