Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/28/2020

Amit Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The British School - Opp.Party(s)

Mohit Sharma

28 Oct 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION -I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                      ======

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/28/2020
Date of Institution	:	17/01/2020
Date of Decision	:	28/10/2020

 

 

Amit Mittal S/o Jagjit Hari Mittal, R/o H.No.182b, Block-B, Sunny Enclave, Sector 125, Kharar, T.C. Kharar, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab-140301.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

 

The British School, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh (U.T) – 160044, through its Principal.

…… Opposite Party

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR. S.K. SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Mohit Sharma, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Opposite Party ex-parte.

 

PER Dr.S.K.Sardana, Member

1.         The facts, in brief, are that the Complainant got her daughter namely Gitali Mittal admitted in LKG class (Foundation Year-II) on 28.01.2019 in the OP-School and paid the admission fee, tuition fee, school fee and other charges amounting of Rs.58,900/- vide Annexure C-1 & C-2 respectively. Since the name of the daughter of the Complainant was in the waiting list in St.Annes’ School, Sector 32, Chandigarh, the Complainant vide letter dated 29.01.2019 (Annexure C-3) requested the Opposite Party to refund the aforesaid fee if his daughter got admission there. Ultimately, the daughter of Complainant got admission in the School of her choice, upon which the Complainant approached Opposite Party and requested for refund of fee. However, the Opposite Party on 22.05.2019 refunded a sum of Rs.48,900/- through Cheque Annexure C-4 and illegally deducted a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The Complainant resisted the deduction of the balance amount, but to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.
3.         Complainant led evidence.      
4.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Complainant.
5.         It is borne on record, Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.58,900/- with the Opposite Party towards admission fee of his daughter in the OP-School. It is the case of the Complainant, on his daughter getting admission in the School of her choice when he requested the Opposite Party to refund the amount, after agreed deduction of 5%, Opposite Party refunded a sum of Rs.48,900/- only vide Cheque dated 22.05.2019 and withheld Rs.10,000/- without any rhyme and reasons. A legal notice dated 16.11.2019 (Annexure C-5) was also served upon the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party failed to make the payment.       
6.         Significantly, the Opposite Party did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party draws an adverse inference against it.
7.         The non-appearance of the Opposite Party shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
8.         In this view of the matter, we are of the concerted opinion that once the daughter of the Complainant did not attend the School even for a single day, it was incumbent upon the Opposite Party to refund the fees, after deducting 5% fee towards administrative charges, which to our mind is a fair and reasonable amount to be deducted.
9.         It is settled proposition of law that no fee (including advance fee) can be illegally held by the Opposite Party for the period for which no teaching/ service is being availed by the daughter of the Complainant.
10.         It is thus established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Party has certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as it ought to have refunded the balance fees after deducting the 5% fee towards administrative charges, which it failed to do and propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant.
11.         At any rate, the Opposite Party even did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant despite having approached for the same by the Complainant time and again. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Party.
12.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed:-

[a]    To refund the balance fee of Rs.7,055/- after deducting Rs.2,945/- from the withheld amount of Rs.10,000/- (being 5% fee towards administrative charges out of the entire fee deposited by the Complainant).

[b]    To pay Rs.2,500/- as compensation to the Complainant for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

[c]    To also pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- to the Complainant as litigation expenses.

13.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by Opposite Party; thereafter, Opposite Party shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c]. 
14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
28/10/2020	[DR.S.K.SARDANA]	[SURJEET KAUR]	[RATTAN SINGH THAKUR]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”