Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/680/2020

Smt. Sandeep Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Te Principal St Anne's Convent School, Sector 32, - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

01 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Smt.Sandeep Kaur w/o Sh.Avtar Singh, House No.76, Green Enclave, Sector 118, Mohali, Punjab.

     ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.   The Principal, St.Anee’s Convent School, Sector 32, Chandigarh 2.   The District Education Officer, UT, Sector 19, Chandigarh

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE: 

SMT.SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

SHRI B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

Argued by:-

          Complainant in person.

          Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. Proxy for Sh.Gurdit Singh          Saini, Adv. for OP No.1.

          OP No.2 exparte.

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      Brief facts of the case are as alleged by the complainant are that the complainant’s daughter Jasmannat Kaur got provisional admission in Class 10+1 (Medical Stream) in OP No.1-School on the basis of the pre-board result of Class 10^th on 16.05.2020 by paying Rs.25000/- vide demand draft dated 16.05.202020. Later it came to the notice of the complainant that Punjab Government reserved 85% seats of MBBS/BDS and other courses for students who studied 10^th, 11^th and 12^th in Punjab State and as such, the complainant preferred to take admission of her daughter in school at Punjab and after 14 days of the admission i.e. 30.05.2020, the complainant requested the OP No.1 to refund the admission/tuition fees of Rs.25000/-, followed by reminder dated 30.05.2020.  The complainant also received reply from OP NO.1 through email dated 12.07.2020 as well as OP NO.2 vide letter dated 21.07.2020 and 05.08.2020. The complainant made repeated requests to the OPs to refund the fees but the same was not acceded to on the ground that the same is non-refundable. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.      In its written statement, OP No.1 has stated that the complainant got her daughter admitted in the school vide admission No.11683 in Class 10+1 (Medical Stream) after going through and understanding the terms and conditions of the admission in which it was clearly mentioned that the admission fee is non-refundable. Ms.Jasmannat Kaur attended some online classes and occupied the seat of the reputed school as such she cannot claim refund of admission fee after changing her mind at later stage. It was also stated that the alleged criteria for 85% state quota in MBBS/BDS courses in Punjab is applicable to only bona fide residents of Punjab and the complainant has failed to place on record or to plead that her daughter is bona fide resident of Punjab. The remaining averments made in the complaint were denied being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.      Despite due service through registered post, OP No.2 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.10.2022.
4.      The complainant filed replication to the written reply of OP No.1 controverting its stand and reiterated the contents of the complaint.
5.      Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.      We have heard the complainant in person and the counsel for the OP No.1 and gone through the record.
7.      Admittedly, the daughter of the complainant namely Jasmannat Kaur got provisional admission in Class 10+1 (Medical Stream) in OP No.1-School on the basis of the pre-board result of Class 10^th on 16.05.2020 by paying Rs.25,000/- vide demand draft dated 16.05.2020.  She vacated the seat of OP No.1 on 16.05.2020 and subsequently, the complainant requested the OPs to refund the fees by writing letters/emails etc. but to no effect. OP No.1 has refused to refund the fees on the ground that the complainant’s daughter withdrew the school voluntarily after attending some classes and the fees is non-refundable as per the terms and conditions of the admission.  In our considered view, OP No.1 should have refunded the fees to the complainant after deducting 10% towards the administrative charges/service charges etc. instead of retaining the entire fees as OP No.1 has not led any documentary evidence to show that the seat left by the complainant’s daughter remains unoccupied for the whole academic year and they have suffered any loss on this count. 
8.      In the light of above, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed qua OP No.1 with a direction to pay Rs.22,500/-  (after deducting 10% of the fees towards the administrative charges/service charges of Rs.25,000/-) to the complainant. This order be complied with by OP No.1 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OP No.1 shall make the payment of the awarded amount with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of its payment, till its actual realization, apart.
9.      The complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed as there is no deficiency in service on its part.
10.      Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed off.
11.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

                    Sd/-                         sd/-