DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NARNAUL
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.171 of 2012
DATE OF INSTITUTION:- 03.09.2012
DATE OF ORDER:-16.01.2015
Subhash Chand son of Shri Pohkar Mal, Resident of village Nangal Soda, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh
……………COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
- Chairman, Suraj School, Bucholi Road, Mahendergarh (Haryana)
- Principal, Suraj School, Bucholi Road, Mahendergarh (Haryana)
- C.B.S.E. Regional Office, Panchkula (Haryana) 134109
………….. OPPOSITE PARTIES
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE :- Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Usha Yadav, Member
L.K. Nandwani, Member
Present:- Shri Kuldeep Singh Bhargarh, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Arvind Yadav, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 and 2
Shri Keshar Singh, Advocate for opposite party No.3.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
According to the complaint, brief facts are that on 16.06.2012 the complainant got admitted his son in the school of opposite parties No.1 and 2 and in lieu thereof opposite parties No.1 and 2 have received Rs.50,000/- from the complainant vide receipt No.3148 dated 16.06.2012 i.e. Rs.1500/- registration fee, Rs.9500/- annual charges, Rs.8400/- tuition fee, Rs.7,000/- hostel registration fee and Rs.26,000/- hostel fee. The complainant has alleged that on 02.07.2012 his son visited the school of opposite parties No.1 and 2, where his son found the school closed due to extension of summer vacations, so his son stayed in the hostel premises for two days. The complainant has averred that on seeing his son did not found the accommodation upto the mark and the behavior of the officials of opposite parties No.1 and 2 was not satisfactory. Keeping in view the circumstances complainant’s son decided not to study and not to use the hostel of opposite parties No.1 and 2 and this fact was bought in the knowledge of officers of the institute. The complainant has specifically averred that he along with his son visited to opposite parties No.1 and 2 on 09.07.2012, 10.07.2012 and 16.07.2012 and requested to refund the deposited fee, but to no effect. Thereafter, legal notice dated 20.07.2012 was served upon the opposite parties, which was replied by opposite parties No.1 and 2 vide dated 31.07.2012 through their counsel Shri Khushi Ram Khairwal, Advocate, Mahendergarh. The complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund the deposited fee along with interest together with compensation for mental agony and harassment, totaling to Rs.90,000/-.
2. Opposite parties No.1 and 2 filed joint reply stating, inter-alia, therein that their hostel is fully air conditioned and in which 1200 students are residing in the said premises. Complainant’s son himself left the school because he was not willing to study, while the school has neither refused to study nor refused to stay in the hostel. There is no provision to refund the fee as per rules and regulations of the C.B.S.E. and the School because the complainant’s son himself was not willing to study. The complainant himself put his signatures on the admission form after reading it, in which there is no clause for refunding the fee. Legal notice of the complainant was replied vide dated 31.07.2012. Rests of the allegations as alleged in the complaint are denied. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite parties. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
3. Opposite party No.3 filed separate reply averring that the alleged fee was not deposited by the complainant with answering opposite party, so opposite party No.3 has no concern with the charges got deposited by opposite parties No.1 and 2 from the complainant. It is averred that the complainant has not made any allegation against opposite party No.3. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties. Rests of the allegations as alleged in the complaint are denied in toto. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3. In the end, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record his own supporting affidavit Annexure CW1/A, copy of legal notice dated 20.07.2012 Annexure C-1, copy of postal receipts annexure C-2, Fee Receipt No.3148 dated 16.06.2012 annexure C-3, Fee Receipts issued by Saraswati Vidhya Mandir Sr. Sec. School, Nangal Chaudhary Annexures C-4 to C-8.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that opposite parties No.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 01.12.2014.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the opposite parties are liable to refund the fees and other charges to the complainant as the son of the complainant had left the school of the opposite parties due to the reasons explained in the complaint.
8. Learned counsels for the opposite parties reiterated the contents of their replies, respectively. Learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 2 submitted that the son of the complainant left the school of the opposite parties as per his own choice, hence the opposite parties are not liable to refund the fees etc. to the complainant.
9. Admittedly, the complainant deposited Rs.50,000/- with the opposite parties on account of registration fee, annual charges, tuition fee and hostel fee etc. It is also undisputed that the son of the complainant left the school of opposite parties No.1 and 2 at the initial stage, without attending the classes. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that when the son of the complainant left the school of opposite parties No.1 and 2, the opposite parties were immediately informed and asked to refund the fees etc. and the opposite parties assured to refund the fees etc. to the complainant on 09.07.2012. On the other side, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 2 has argued that the son of the complainant left the school without informing opposite parties No.1 and 2 and thus opposite parties No.1 and 2 could not admit the other student in place of son of the complainant and the sheet remained vacant.
10. The contention of opposite parties No.1 and 2 that the son of the complainant left the school without informing opposite parties No.1 and 2 seems to be baseless, because the complainant got issued legal notice dated 20.07.2012, copy of which is annexure C-1, to the opposite parties for refund of fees etc., which was also replied by opposite parties No.1 and 2 vide reply dated 31.07.2012 through their Advocate. From the pleadings of the complainant as well as from the pleadings of the opposite parties, it is manifest that the son of the complainant did not attend the classes in the school and nor resided in the hostel of opposite parties No.1 and 2 and left the school at a very initial stage. According to the complainant, his son has got the admission in another school ‘Saraswati Vidya Mandir Senior Secondary School’ and referred the fee receipts issued by the said school Annexures C-4 to C-8.
11. Taking into account every aspect of the case, we have come to the conclusion that opposite parties No.1 and 2 are liable to refund the fees and other charges after deducting the process charges, which we quantify at Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, we direct opposite parties No.1 and 2 to refund Rs.45,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 03.09.2012 till the date of payment. This order be complied with by opposite parties No.1 and 2 within 45 days from the date of passing of this order. No order as to cost.
Announced:-
16.01.2015
(Smt. Usha Yadav) (L. K. Nandwani) (Rajesh Jindal)
Member Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Narnaul
