BEFORE THE  DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;  DHARWAD.

DATE: 30^th November 2015         

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha       : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi             : Member 

Complaint No.: 255/2015  

Complainant/s:               Yashwant Ramachandra Vajantri,                     Age: 50 years, Occ: Teacher/ Journalist, R/o.Rabakavi, Tq. Jamakhandi, Dist. Bagalkot.

                (In Person)

v/s

Respondent/s:                 The Principal, Budding Kingdom English Medium High School, Line Bazar, Near Vanita Seva Samaj, Dharwad 580001.

                                        (By Sri.B.R.Bhat, Adv.)

O R D E R

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

1.     The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to refund Rs.12,300/- along with interest paid towards admission fee, to pay Rs.70,000/- towards compensation and to order for cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.     The case of the complainant is that, complainant is a teacher and residing in the address given in the cause title. With a sole intention to provide good education to the son of the complainant Kum.Vivekanand Yashwant Vajantri, the complainant got admitted his son to the respondent school by paying a sum of Rs.12,300/- on 05.06.2014 under receipt. Since the said school was not having proper infrastructure, the son of the complainant did not like to continue his education at the respondent school and refused to go. Hence, the complainant got admitted  him to his previous school Gnanoday Shikshana English Medium School, Ramapur, Bagalkot District. Thereafter the complainant requested the respondent to refund the fee. For that the respondent made the complainant to wander assuring to refund the same but not paid. Even to the direction issued by the BEO the respondent did not heed and returned the amount. Thereafter the complainant made several approaches and requisitions to refund the same. Even then the respondent did not return the amount. The non refund of the amount by the respondent amounts to deficiency in service apart from that the complainant subjected to mental agony as such the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.

3.     In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondent appeared and filed the written version in detail denying and disputing the complaint averments and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same. While the respondent admits admission given to the complainant’s son and averred, after admission the son of the complainant attended the school. Among such other admissions and denials the respondent denied the allegation made by the complainant with regard to the infrastructure and atmosphere of the school and contended the same were with a deliberate intention to obtain the refund making cock and bull stories, denied the direction issued by the BEO to the respondent directing to refund the amount. Further the respondent disputing the complaint averments in detail averred with regard to the infrastructure, discipline maintained in the school and other things. Further the respondent denied and dispute with regard to the deficiency in service for the reason unknown to the respondent and known to the complainant for their own sake to leave the school of the respondent. Hence, there does not arise question of refunding the amount as the respondent school belongs to minority education institution running properly with all infrastructure and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit, relied on documents. The respondent apart from argument relied on citations.  Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1. Affirmatively 
2. Accordingly  
3.  As per order

Reasons

Points 1 and 2

5.     On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, that the complainant got admitted his son by paying fee. Thereafter discontinued.  

6.     Now the question to be determined is, whether non refund of the amount amounts to a deficiency in service, if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.

7.     On going through the pleadings coupled with the evidence except making the allegations the complainant did not produced any evidence to show that the respondent school is not having proper infrastructure to continue the education by his son at respondent institution. Except examining himself the complainant did not produced any additional evidence.  So also the complainant did not produced any evidence to show that similar to his son any other students left the institution of the respondent on the basis of insufficient infrastructure of the institution. As discussed there is no dispute with regard to the fact the complainant’s son left the institution of the respondent and continued the education at his previous school.

8.     Further we have to look into another aspect, by discontinuation by the son of the complainant whether the said seat kept vacant throughout the academic year and also we have to look, due to discontinuation the respondent institution has suffered any financial loss. In this regard the respondent did not produced any document. So also the respondent as per their contention i.e. after the admission the son of the complainant had attended the classes, the respondent did not produced any document. Under those circumstances it is not proper to withhold entire fee paid by the complainant to the respondent.

9.     Though the complainant failed to establish inferior infrastructure  which would affects or which could not able to continue the course in the respondent institution it is evident that at its whims and fancy only, son of the complainant discontinued the education and not due to bad infrastructure as alleged by the complainant. The denial to refund the amount though not illegal and proper but on equity it is not proper to withhold the amount when the student is not used to continue his studies in the respondent school.

10.   Though it cannot be considered deficiency in service on the basis of equity if it is directed the respondent to pay the part amount it will not cause injustice either to the party or overburden the respondent. Since the complainant’s left the school once for all there does not arise question of collecting computer fee, tuition fee and DF fee as collected by the respondent. Hence, complainant is entitled for refund of the part amount. Since there was no any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the respondent the complainant is not entitled for any compensation or cost of the proceedings.

11.  In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 affirmative and 2 accordingly.

12.   Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following 

O R D E R

        Complaint is allowed in part. The respondent is directed to refund Rs.8,300/- paid towards the admission fee within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing to comply the same, the said amount shall carry interest @9% P.A. from thereon till realization. Further it is ordered if the respondent failed to comply the order within the stipulated days hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.50/- per day to the complainant from the date of disobedience of order, till the day the order is complied.

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 30^th day of November 2015)

(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi)                                      (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)

Member                                                           President

Dist.Consumer Forum                                    Dist.Consumer Forum

MSR