O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant against the Op in brief is, that she got her son Akshay Kumar admitted to II standard in the school run by the OP who are following Montessori Method from I standard to X standard. On 01/05/2009 on the date of admission, Op received an advance of Rs.25,000/-. But the Ops treatment just after one month to the child was different and her child was finding very uncomfortable to go to school as the Op used to condemn him for silly reasons. That Ms.Pooja and Ms. Esme Davis business partners of Op deceived her. Therefore, she, not wasting her time admitted her son to a different school and spent Rs.45,000/-. As it was mid of the year, there also he could not continue because of the distance therefore got the boy admitted to another school by paying Rs.13,200/-. All these happened because of the Op and it was middle of the year. Then when she approached Op to refund advance money they have only paid her Rs.8,000/- and have withheld the balance of Rs.9,000/- and therefore has prayed for a direction to Op to refund Rs.9,000/-.<br /> <br /> Op had appeared through their advocate and filed version contending that their school is imparting Montessori education to children and is committed to that objectives. Op admitting enrollment of the child to the school has also admitted receipt of advance amount of Rs.25,000/- and stated when the cheque given by the complainant towards advance was sent for collection, complainant issued stop payment. Then her husband paid cash. Op denying the allegations of the complainant about ill treatment or discrimination of the boy stated that they after observing certain behaviour of the boy, in the first Parent and Teachers Meeting held on 29/06/2009 communicated their observations to the complainant’s husband and also e-mailed to them. Then they came across the complainant’s consulting Psychologist on 08/05/2009 on the behavioral observation of the boy even before admitting to the school, they further communicated to the father of the complainant to give attention to certain continued behaviour of the boy. They denying to had suggested any unhappy information of the boy to the complainant have stated that the complainant had sent the boy to the school on 07/07/2009 after having kept at home from 03/07/2009 to 06/07/2009. Thereafter again the complainant permanently withheld the boy from the school without any communications to them and that boy remained absent from July 06/07/2009 to 24/07/2009 then the complainant asked them to suggest any test to be done on the basis of the report of Dr. Lalitha Bhat, a Psychiatrist for which they suggest, that they cannot suggest any test and it is for the Psychiatrist to suggest. Op further narrating to several e-mails sent by them to the husband of the complainant stated that they had even reminded to complainant’s husband that keeping the child at home is not advisable and it is a grave mistake and therefore, requested them to send the child to school but despite that the complainant without informing them kept away the boy from the school and their request and advise not to repeat such thing was not heeded and the Op denying all other allegations of the complainant submitted that the complainant who had paid advance amount of Rs.20,000/- thereafter did not pay two months school fee therefore with holding school fee as a special case have refunded Rs.8,000/- and thus denying any short comings at their end has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> In the course of enquiry into the complaint, complainant and the OP have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with the complaint has produced copy of receipts having paid the advance money, copies of receipts under which she had paid admission fee to other schools. Op has produced copies of several e-mails she sent to the husband of the complainant. We have heard the counsel for both parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the Op has caused deficiency in service by treating her son differently which is un becoming of a school and in not refunding Rs.9,000/-.<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> Our findings are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No.1 : In the negative<br /> Point No.2 : See the final order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> Answer on point No.1: Since the Op has admitted to had received Rs.25,000/- as advance money for admission of the complainant’s son to the second standard of Montessori education we need not go to those details here. It is also not in dispute that the complainant’s son was admitted to Op School on 18/05/2009 but the complainant has nowhere stated when she took away her son from Op school or the reasons as to why the boy was taken away from the Op school. The complainant has also not stated that it is the Op who has sent the boy out of the school or any such behaviour or treatment of Op that led the complainant to take the boy away from the Op school for getting him admitted elsewhere. Of course, the complainant has produced a receipt of another school called Janana Sweekar Public School, where she got her son admitted to that school on 09/07/2009. Therefore, it can be presumed that boy who was admitted to the Op school during May 2009 was taken out of this school by 09/07/2009 by discontinuing him studies in the Op school. As already stated by us above, the complainant except stating that the Op treated her child differently and her son was finding very uncomfortable to go to school has not spelled out as to what that different treatment that the Op shown to the child and the reason for the complainants son becoming uncomfortable to go to school. <br /> <br /> As against the above allegation of the complainant, Op not only in his version but also in the affidavit evidence has categorically stated that they after admission of their child to the school had observed some different behaviour of the child and this was brought to the notice of the complainant’s husband in the first parent and teachers meeting held on 29/06/2009 and they shared their observations with the father and also sent an email in this regard to the father of the complainant on 03/07/2009. The Op after having observed the boy also came to know this complainant getting her child examined with a Psychiatrist called Dr. Lalitha Bhat on 08/05/2009 even prior to the admission of the boy to their school and they obtained a copy of the report of that Psychiatrist and have produced before us. In this report, the Psychiatrist after assessing the behaviour of the boy in the summary referring to certain behaviour as normal has stated that boy’s developmental age is 5 years 7 months indicating below average visual motor visuo –spatial abilities. However this has to be treated in the light of his restlessness and reluctance to take the test. On SLD assessment, nothing much could be done. However, there is no reading and spelling disability and suggested parental counseling and to continue in Montessori system of education. With this, the complainant herself has admitted that the psychiatrist had advised them to make assessment keeping in mind the observations and to report back. It is further on going through the undisputed facts revealed by the Op and her evidence, the complainant kept away the child from the Op school without even informing them. OP after finding that the complainant’s son was not attending the class, had even sent an e-mail to the complainant’s husband on 01/08/2009, stating that Akshay has now been absent for a month of school, without any communication from his end and stated keeping Akshay at home is a grave error as it does not allow all the process that usually help a child till setting to school and class routines and told father of the complainant about her intension to meet him and to set a time for that. Further the Op again through her e-mail on 06/08/2009 and again on 13/08/2009 and thereafter sent similar e-mails showing her concern to the child and in this complainant and her husband keeping the child away from the school and desist from so doing. During all these communications sent by the Ops neither complainant nor her husband informed the Op of taking their son out of the Ops school and admitting him elsewhere. Therefore for such any act of the complainant themselves, Op cannot be blamed. The Op has further stated considering as a special case and also that non-payment of two months tuition fees refunded Rs.8,000/-. The complainant has complained that OP has not refunded Rs.9,000/-. When the complainant did not understand the concern of the Op for the well being of child voluntarily took away the boy from the school got him admitted in the middle of the year and despite this courteous and concern of the Op, the complainant has started making allegations against them which in our view is merciless. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any deficiency in the service of the Op. Whenever a child or a student is taken out of the school in the middle of the year that too without informing the Principal and approach the Principal for refund of fee that would disrupt the balancing of the management of the school as such the Op is justified in refusing to refund the balance fee. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable and by answering point No.1 in the negative we pass the following order.<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 15th July 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br />