Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/563

THE PRINCIPAL/ADMINISTRATOR KEPEES INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURESH - Opp.Party(s)

N PADMINI

06 May 2019

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 563/2016

JUDGMENT DATED : 06.05.2019

 

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.23/2015

 on the file of CDRF, Wayanad, Kalpetta)

 

PRESENT

 

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                        : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

SRI.RANJIT.R                                  : MEMBER

 

SMT.BEENA KUMARI.A                   : MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

The Principal/ Administrator, KepeesInternational  School, run by Kepees Educational and Charitable Trust, Crescent Hill, Ootty Road, Kunnambetta.P.O, Wayanad 673 123

                          (BY Adv.Smt.N.Padmini)

 

                                                        VS

RESPONDENT

Suresh, S/o.Late Vasu, Palakkal House, Sooryalayam,   K.G.Nagar, Near Warehouse, Market Road, Kalpetta, Kalpetta Post, Kalpetta village, Vythiri Taluk, Wayanad District

                               (BY Adv.Sri.Kalachudan.G)

 

                                                JUDGMENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                        :JUDICIAL MEMBER

                The opposite party in CC.No.23/15 of the Consumer Disputes Redrssal Forum, Wayand, Kalpetta, in short the district forum has filed the appeal against the order passed by the district forum by which he was directed to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation Rs 10,000/- as cost to the complainant.

                2.     The averments contained in the complaint are in brief as follows. The son of the complainant is the student of the opposite party’s school. Before admitting in opposite party’s school his son studied in De Paul School, Kalpetta. The opposite party has started the new school and the representative of opposite party came to the house of the complainant and given the brochure of the opposite party school and canvassed and convinced the complainant and his son stating that their school has more comfort and facilities like smart class, digital theater, music, art, physical education class, accelerated mathematical program, language lab, interaction with expert, study trips, customized computer curriculum, science lab, mathematical lab, demonstration project and task, special Montessori class rooms with skillful and vigilant facility, digital class room with smart class, good library facility, swimming pool etc and all these facilities were available at present. Believing the words of the representative of opposite party, the complainant admitted his son Aadi,P.S. in the year 2013 in opposite party’s school.  But due to the non availability of the offered facilities in the year 2013 and 2014 the complainant complained to opposite parties to provide those facilities. Then the opposite party assured that they will provide all the offered facilities in the year 2014-2015 and if it is not provided, it is undertook that the complainant need not pay any fees for his student. The complainant’s son was excellent in studying and other extra curricular activities and the complainant admitted his son in the school for improving his all the qualities, but at last when he repeated his grievance, then the opposite party directed the complainant to relieve his son from this school after collecting the TC. The complainant further says that due to the threat of sending the student after issuing the TC, the complainant and his son suffered much tension, difficulties, sufferings, hardships and losses and due to these difficulties the child lost his all abilities including the moral, sports and arts etc. The complainant further says that it is clear case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party. Due this the child is mentally depressed.  The complainant further says that for the last five months no classes were conducting in the afternoon and only dance practice is conducting in the afternoon and further says that all the teachers in the school were not qualified teachers and when the complainant asked for the profiles of the teachers, the opposite party had not supplied the details about their qualification. Hence the complainant prayed before the forum to direct the opposite party to pay              Rs 1,00,.000/- as compensation for not providing the offered facilities and also to direct them to pay Rs 50,000/- for the mental agony, difficulties and sufferings caused to the complainant and his son and also to direct to pay the cost of the proceedings.

                3. Opposite party filed version raising the following contentions. The complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act 1986. There is no cause of action for the complaint and the alleged one is imaginary and fabricated. It is true that the complainant’s ward P.S.Aadhi was a student in 2^nd standard with the opposite party. The school run by the opposite party is under the control of keypees educational and charitable trust. The opposite party visualize a unique institution with respect to cleanliness, parental care, healthy learning atmosphere, in stress trees, relaxed environment with world class academic and infrastructural facilities aiming at spiritual, intellectual, physical and emotional development of the wards in the school irrespective of the religion, case, creed, financial status etc. The complainant appears to be an overzealous and high possessive parent by watching the movements, character and body language of the ward. This opposite party had on many occasion suggested the complainant to free the ward and to allow him to mingle with the students and the institutions itself without any particular restrictions from him. In all these issues there is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                4.     PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the complainant and OPW1 to OPW4 were examined and Exts. B1 to B18 series were marked on the side of the opposite party. The reports filed by the commissioner were marked as Exts.C1 & C2. The copies of the certificates were marked as Ext.X1 series and copy of the Attendance register is marked as Ext.X2 series. Considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing both sides the district forum has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum the opposite party has preferred the present appeal.

                5.     Heard both sides. Perused the records.

                6.     The opposite party has raised the contention that the complaint is not maintainable. The said question was considered by the district forum as a preliminary point and it was found that the complaint is maintainable. The specific case of the complainant is that the opposite party has not provided the promised facilities in the school as stated in the brochure and the advertisement made by them. The district forum found that the imparting of education by a technical institution or consideration falls within the ambit of             “ service ’’as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and hence the complaint is maintainable before the forum. We consider that there is no reason / ground to interfere with the said finding of the district forum.

                7.     According to the complainant he had admitted his minor son in the school of the opposite party on 01.06.2013 after he was canvassed and convinced by the representatives of the opposite party as per Ext.A1 brochure that their school was equipped with special Montessori class rooms with skillful and vigilant facility, digital class room with smart class, well equipped library, language lab, mathematical lab and customized computer curriculum etc. The printed brochure Ext.A1 brought out and supplied to public by the school had promised an international school where students participate in challenging preparatory curriculum from preschool itself with ample opportunities for individual attention and personal growth through the use of advanced technological tools like smart board and computers. Ext.A9 also proclaimed that it is the only educational institution in Wayanad with international standards. Later the complainant found that these statements made not meant for observation and application and they were made fraudulently with malicious intention. The teachers in the school were not properly qualified. When the complainant came to know that the facilities promised by the opposite parties were not forthcoming, the complainant, on several occasions demanded through Ext.A11, Ext.A12 and Ext.A13 to provide the facilities stated in the brochure and also promised to him at the time of canvassing him for admitting his son in the school. It is only because of the differences arising out of the controversy regarding the education imparted to the minor son of the complainant on 29.12.2014, the opposite party issued Ext.A7 letter to the complainant and telephonically informed him to collect the transfer certificate of his son from the school office with created untold hardship and suffering both to the complainant and his son. Alleging deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the complainant had filed the complaint. The opposite party denied the allegations made by the complainant. The opposite party admitted that the son of the complainant joined in their school in grade no.1 on 01.06.2013. He had completed the grade 1 and he was promoted to grade 2. The complainant failed to remit the fees and when the opposite party demanded the complainant to remit the fees, he has started trouble. The complainant had been raising false allegations against the school only to wreck vengeance to the opposite party. The complainant was an irritating parent who called teachers at odd times and sent unwanted messages to the teachers and higher officials of the school. Till 19.12.2014 the complainant has come no complaint against the opposite party. The whole episode started after the rejection of the request of the complainant to give him a job in the canteen by the opposite party and when the opposite party sent letters to him to remit the fees. The complainant had taken his son by force, not permitting him to participate in the items which he was practicing for the Annual fest which shows the arrogant nature of the complainant. By his arrogance the complainant has caused mental pain and stress not only to his but also to other children and their parents and the opposite party. The district forum after analyzing the evidence and documents produced by the party found that there was deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and they were directed to pay compensation of Rs 50,000/- and cost of Rs 10,000/- to the complainant.

                8.     The counsel for the appellant submitted that the district forum did not consider the fact that till 19.12.2014 the complainant has no complaint against the opposite party and the whole episode started when the opposite party rejected the application of the complainant to give him a job in the canteen of the school and when the opposite party sent letters to the complainant demanding him to remit the fees. Ext.B3 is the note book in which the complainant had written his appreciation regarding the service rendered by the teachers in the school. Ext.B4  is page no.22 of Ext.B3 dated 08.11.2014 in which the complainant has written that he was very much happy to know that how the teaches are helping the kids to improve themselves. PW1 admitted that he had written the matters mentioned in Ext.B4, but according to him he has happened to write like that because of the compulsion of the teachers. The said case of the complaint cannot believed, since he has no such case till he gave the deposition. Ext.B2 series contain the applications submitted by the complainant to the opposite party for appointment to a post in the kitchen of the school, his biodata and Certificate, which shows that the complainant had applied for a post in the canteen of the opposite party and that was rejected by the opposite party. Ext.A7is the letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 29.12.2014 in which it is stated that for the reasons mentioned in that letter the opposite party could not hold back the child of the complainant for the next academic year and the complainant was informed to collect the transfer certificate of his son Aadhi.P.S as early as possible. In Ext.A7 five reasons are stated for issuing transfer certificate to the child of the complainant from the school of the opposite party. The complainant has not specifically denied the allegations mentioned in Ext.A7. Further PW1 admitted that in the academic year 2014-2014 he had remitted fee only for the first term. So the opposite party can be justified in issuing transfer certificate to the son of the complainant. In Khimkaran Charitable and Education Trust Vs Ratansingh Thakur (2010) NC J 683 (NC) it was held that where the guardian does not comply with the rules and regulations, is by itself an adequate and justifiable reason to the school to take necessary action against student. In that decision it was held that all educational institution have their own set of rules and regulations governing various aspects of their management, schedule of fee payment, discipline etc. Compliance with these rules and regulations is necessary for the smooth and efficient functioning of the school as well for its reputation. In these circumstances it can be seen that the opposite party is justified in issuing transfer certificate to the son of the complainant and they cannot be blamed for that and if it caused mental pain and agony to the son of the complainant, Complainant himself is responsible for that and the opposite party cannot be held liable for that.

                9.     Considering Exts.A7, B2 series, B3, B4 it can be seen that the contention of the opposite party that the complainant started to raise allegations against them, since they demanded him to remit the fees and since they did not consider his request to give him job in the canteen of the school is not baseless.

                10.   The documents produced by the complainant and the facts brought out in evidence show that the complainant has filed complaints against the school of the opposite party before several Authorities such as Health Department, Secretary to Government, Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram, Children Right Protection Commission, Thiruvananthapuram etc. Some of the Authorities had given some directions to the opposite party and the opposite party submitted that those directions would be complied. We are of the view that we need not consider whether the directions issued by the Authorities mentioned above are justifiable and whether those directions were complied by the opposite party since those are matters to be considered by the appropriate Authorities before whom complainant had filed the complaints. All these facts show that the contention of the opposite party that the complainant has filed the complaints against them before the various Authorities with the intention of tarnishing the image of the school of the opposite party and not for the welfare of his child has got some basis. Another contention raised by the complainant is that regarding the qualification of the teachers who are teaching in the school. It is stated by the opposite party that the teachers were all trained and having adequate qualifications and experience. The opposite party has produced the copies of the certificate of the teachers which were marked as Ext.A18 series. Prima facie it shows that all the teachers were qualified. We consider that we need not go deep into the educational qualification and experience of the teachers, such as whether they had undergone Montessori training, or some other training because of two reasons. One is that in Ext.B4 dated 08.11.2014 the complainant had expressed his good appreciation of the service of the teachers and at that time he has no objection regarding the educational qualifications of the teachers. The second is that the complainant had approached the Secretary, Government Education Department,Thiruvananthapuram. So that they can look into this matter. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the district forum did not consider Exts.B12, B13 and B16. Ext.B12 is dated 02.03.2015. Ext.B13 is dated 27.03.2015 and Ext.B16 is dated 07.06.2015. So all those documents are of the dates subsequent to the filing of the present complaint on 20.01.2015. Further all those documents are issued after the child of the complainant was given transfer certificate by the opposite party. So the district forum has not given any importance to those documents.

                11.   The district forum after analyzing the evidence and the documents produced by the parties found that there is clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite party. In Ext.A1 brochure the opposite party had promised several facilities to the school. In Ext.A9 advertisement they had stated that their school is the only one educational institution in Wayanad having international status. In Ext.C2 report the commissioner has specifically stated as to what are the facilities which were not provided in the school. So it has come out in evidence that the opposite party could not provide all the facilities stated in Ext.A1 brochure and Ext.A9 advertisement. The complainant had spent huge amount for admission and fees to the institution of the opposite party, being attracted by the advertisement of the opposite party. But the opposite party had not provided all the facilities offered by advertisement. So, as found by the district forum there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is liable to be compensated by the opposite parties. The opposite party cannot be directed to pay compensation for the mental agony alleged to have suffered by the complainant and his son, when the opposite party issued transfer certificate to his son, since such an act on the part of the opposite party was invited by the complainant by his own acts. It is to be noted that the opposite party has not raised any allegation against the child / son of the complainant. Considering all these facts we consider that the compensation and cost ordered by the district forum is on the higher side and it has to be reduced to Rs 20,000/- and Rs 5000/- respectively. The direction of the district forum to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the amounts ordered, if it is not paid within one month from the date of the order is to be set aside. We do so. The order passed by the district forum is to be modified to that effect.

                        In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order passed by the district forum is modified as follows. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs 20,000/- as compensation and Rs 5000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

                   Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

                        At the time of filing of the appeal the appellant has deposited Rs 25,000/- . The respondent / complainant is permitted to obtain the release of the said amount, on proper application to be credited / adjusted towards the amount ordered as above.

 

T.S.P.MOOSATH                              : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

 

RANJIT.R                                         : MEMBER

 

 

 

BEENA KUMARI.A                           : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

    Be/

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 SISUVIHARLANE

 VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

                                       

APPEAL NUMBER  563/2016

JUDGMENT DATED :06.05.2019