OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C.15/2015
Present:-
1) Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2) Smti Archana Deka Lahkar - Member
1) Sri Ram Sagar Deori - Complainant
S/O Late Biren Deori Bishnunagar,
Guwahati Airport, District : Kamrup.
2) Nishan Jimosaya (Minor)
S/O Ram Sagar Deori ,Bishnunagar,
Guwahati Airport, District : Kamrup.
-vs-
1) The GEMS NPS, International School -Opp. parties
Near Lakhara Chari Ali ,P.O.Sualkuchi,
Guwahati, Assam
2) The Principal, The GEMS NPS, International School
P.O.Sualkuchi, Guwahati, Assam
Appearance-
Learned advocates for the complainant - Mr.S.K.Deori.
Date of argument- 23.3.2017
Date of judgment- 31.3.2017
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
This is a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1) The complaint filed by Sri Ram Sagar Deori, Nishan Jimosaya against GEMS NPS, International School and its Principal was admitted on 26.2.2015 , and notices were sent to the opp.parties through registered post A/D letters , but the notices were not returned and, in result, this forum vide order dated 1.6.16, directed that this case against both the opp.parties will proceed on exparte. The complainant filed their evidence on affidavit of Sri Ram Sagar Deori, (Complainant No.1). Thereafter, the complainant sides’ counsel filed their written argument, and thereafter their counsel Ld advocate Mr.S.K.Deori on 23.3.17 forwarded his oral argument for the complainant , and today , we deliver our judgment, which is as below.
2) The case of the complaint in brief is that the Complainant No.1 had got his son, Nishan Jimosaya (Complainant No.2) admitted in class XI (Arts) at GEMS NPS, International School, Lakhra Chariali, Guwahati, (Opp.Party No.1 on 5.5.2014 on payment of Rs.72,200/- (Registration fee - Rs.1,000/-, Admission fees-Rs.25,000/-, Annual fee Rs.30,000/-, Tution fee total Installment Rs.16,200/-) and he also deposited Rs. 16,200/- the 2nd installment of Tution fee in the bank account and also paid Rs.500/-again as registration fee; and in total, he paid Rs.88,900/-, but due to short sighted wrong decision of the principal of the said school, taken on 19.9.14, has badly affected the future of his son and that has forced him to withdraw his son from the said school. His son is very gentle and honest boy, but little weak in the study, but active in participating in debate and other events in the school. There was no record of complaint of the disciplinary action of the school authority against his son, but once the Principal informed that his son goes to the toilet frequently and sometime do not tag-in uniform shirt and simple this reason cannot deserved from a Principal of a prestigious school. On 19.9.14 at 12A.M. he received a telephone call from the Principal which directed him to come to the school but he told the principal that he was busy, then he was again requested to come to the school on the next day, and on that very day he received a second call from the Principal and the Principal told him that if he does not come to school on that day, his son will not be allowed to go home, and then he attended the school at 1-33 hours and he found that his son was standing helplessly in school uniform with tears in eyes and his son told him that he has taped on the shoulder of a fellow school girl, who was sitting on front seat of him in the school bus for some discussion; and then a lady came out from the office of the school and asked him to meet the Principal first, and he then attended the office of the Principal, and the Principal told him that his son had sexually harassed a girl in public in the school bus and accordingly his son cannot be allowed to come by the said school bus, which is a exaggerated story made by the Principal and his son was forced to accept that story in writing and he was also forced to sign an application form and on the TC counter foil. The Principal told him that the future course of action would be intimated to him. He was called to the school for three times, and so , such behaviour of the Principal may either the Principal was restricting of talking to his son or he may be recording the discussion with him. He, being aggrieved with the rough behavior as well as pervasive and arbitrary decision of the Principal decided to withdraw his son from the said school on 13.10.14. It is pre-planned story of the Principal to trap his son by any means and as a plan of said trapping, the Principal targeted the school bus, in which, his son used to go to the school travelling 25 k.m. from his house, without which his son cannot attend the school. As per the provision of the school Almanac 2014-15, pg-27 Bus-Rules , neither any girl nor any boy had reported any case against his son to the supervisor of the school bus, but the Principal told him that a teacher is the witness of the alleged act, but no teacher had reported the matter to the bus supervisor, and if the allegation would have been true, the seat of his son would have been changed as a corrective measure with warning , but it was not done. There is no any witness of such act between his son and the girl , and therefore, decision of the Principal is pre-planned one and with wrong motive. The Principal could have called the complaint of the parents of the said girl, but that was not done. On 19.9.2014 the Principal had taken wrong steps on his own basing on with a verbally narrated story without any evidence. After debarment of his son from using the school bus, he had tried level best by sending his son to the school and he also requested the principal to return the school bus fee, which he had paid and to make alternative arrangement by sending letter through e.mail on 26.9.2014, but no response from the Principal was found and finally the said wrong decision of the Principal led him to withdraw his son from the said school. He also requested the Principal to return Rs.88,900/- which he had paid at the time of admission of his son. The Principal has played intentionally on the future of his son, and that affected/harmed his one year academic period, and his son is now in very disturbed and depressed mood, and all the family members of his family are also running from disturbed life since then, and for such unpleasant situation, the school Principal shall have to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to him for such wrong, malicious and arbitrary and for causing loss of one academic year to his son and for causing irreparable loss and mental agony to his son and his family members. So, he prays for directing the opp.parties to refund back Rs.88,900/- which he had paid to the opp.parties at the time of admission of his son, with interest @9%, and also to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for physical, mental sufferings agony suffered by him and his son .
2) We have perused the evidence of Sri Ram Sagar Deori (Complainant No.1) . After perusing evidence of Complainant No.1, it appears to us that he is narrating what he narrates in the complaint. In this case, the moot point is , whether the decision taken by the Principal of the Gems NPS International School is a wrong decision. It is the burden of the complainant to prove his allegation raised against the Principal, but the complainant side has not adduced evidence of any other witness or, nor produced any documentary evidence to corroborate his version. Therefore, the statement, which the complainant gives in his affidavit (evidence) cannot be accepted as a true version. Secondly, the decision of Principal of the opp.party school is found to be act of debarring the son of Complainant No.1 to travel to the school in their school bus and nothing more than that, has been done, nor any order affecting the life of the son of the complainant has been passed by the Principal; and as such the instant order of the principal shall be presumed to be an act of corrective measure only, and on that count, the order of the principal can be presumed to be a wrong order. Secondly, it is also seen that the school authority has not shown any tendency to expel the son of Complainant No.1 from the said school. The son of the Complainant No.1 is a major boy reading class XI, and therefore, if the allegation of the Complainant No.1 would have been true, the said son of Complainant No.1 (Complainant No.2) could have attended this forum in person and give evidence in support of the complaint filed by them, but he has not turned up at all, this conduct on the part of the Complainant No.2 infers that, the allegation of the complainants’ that the principal had taken action against his son arbitrarily by making a exaggerated story of sexual harassment to a female student by his son is not a true allegation. It is also found that after debarment of his son from travelling in the school bus neither the Complainant No.1, nor the Complainant No.2 approached the school authority or the principal to re-consider their order, nor the complainant side requested the principal to do a proper enquiry as to the alleged fact and give decision after hearing the version of the witness and the alleged victim girl. This conduct of the complainant side also infers that the allegation raised by the complainants against the principal of the said school is not factually true. On that count, the allegation raised by the complainants against the principal of the said school cannot be held to have been established rather, the allegation raised against Complainant No.2 shall be presumed to have been established and evidence in support of said allegation found by the school authority shall also be presumed to be factually true. So,we hold that the Complainant No.1 has failed to establish the grounds of withdrawing his son from the said school of the opp.parties and therefore, parallelly we hold that the complainant No.1 withdraw his son from the said school intentionally without any legitimate ground. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the complainants are not entitled to get back Rs,88,900/-from the opp.party, which Complainant No.1 had paid to the opp.party at the time of admission of Complainant No.2, or to any compensation as prayed. Summarising our discussion as above, we hold that the complaint is lacking merit and it is liable to be dismissed . Accordingly the complaint is dismissed.
Given under our hands and seals in this day of the 31st March, 2017.
( Smti Archana Deka Lahkar ) (Md.S.Hussain)
Member President
