THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 5^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI – MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 672/2013

Hiranya Venkataraman,

Represented by his Power of

Attorney holder,

Smt.Anindita.S.Venkataraman, 

….Appellant/s.

(By Sri/Smt. Dinesh S.Kadlaas,  Adv.,)

-Versus-

1. The International School Bangalore,

NAFL Valley, White Filed – Sarjapura Road,

Near Dommasandra Circle,

(Represented by it’s Principal

Sri.Mathew Sullivan)

2. Sri.Mathew Sullivan,

Principal , The International School Bangalore,

NAFL Valley,

White Filed – Sarjapura Road,

Near Dommasandra Circle,

3. Sri.Bindu Hari,

Director, The International School Bangalore,

NAFL Valley, White Filed – Sarjapura Road,

Near Dommasandra Circle,

……….. Respondent/s

(Respondent No.1&2 by Black Coats-Law Firm, Adv.,)

: ORDERS:

BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER

The complainant in complaint No.500/2012 preferred this appeal against the dismissal order made by the 3^rd Addl. Consumer Commission, Bengaluru and submitted that the complainant is the student of Opposite Party School since from inception and he studied from nursery to 10^th standard and having good reputation and shown excellent performance in all activities and subsequently he promoted to grade 11^th Class. After admission, without any reasons, the Opposite Parties have targeted the complainant and forced him to leave the school in the academic term even the Opposite Parties have suspended the complainant without any reason and given mental torture for which the complainant have no option and forcibly left the school and demanded for refund of the amount paid towards admission to the tune of Rs.1,32,955-00 refundable deposit Rs.25,000-00 and balance pocket money Rs.8,914-00, totally demanded for Rs.1,66,869-00, but the Opposite Parties failed to  refund the said amount demanded by the complainant against which the complainant file a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency of service.

2.         After trial, the District Commission dismissed the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties to pay refundable amount of Rs.33,665-00 to the complainant against which appellant before this Commission and prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and prayed for refund of the entire amount paid towards admission.

3.         Heard from appellant and respondents not present.

4.         On going though the order passed by the District Commission and memorandum of appeal, we noticed here that the complainant was studied in the Opposite Parties School from 1^st to 10^th standard when he was in class 11^th, the complainant alleged that he was forced to leave the school for the best reasons known to them. On several occasions, he was suspended without any reasons hence, alleged deficiency of service. Whereas the Opposite Parties have taken contention that the complainant started distracting and disinterested in his studies during the 11^th class his behavior towards classmates and teachers became unbearable and crossed all the limits. The teachers and principal have received several complaints from the classmates and teachers for which the complainant was warned on several times and the same facts were also brought to the knowledge of the parents of the complainant. Further they advised the complainant to rectify his behavior, but the complainant has not rectified his mistake and continued his behavior. Subsequently, the complainant himself has chosen to quit the Opposite Parties School and on his own there is no any reason for compelling the complainant to exist from the school, there is no any deficiency of service on the part of this Opposite Parties and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  Apart from that, they undertaken to refund an amount of Rs.33,665-00 to the complainant.

            5. After trial, the District Commission directed the Opposite Parties to pay only Rs.33,665-00 and dismissed the complaint as there is no deficiency in service. The complainant has not produced any material before the District Commission to show that the School or Principal/Opposite Parties School have terminated the complainant from attending the class 11^th, it is only the complainant himself who exited from the School itself. The Opposite Parties have undertaken to repay the refundable amount to the complainant. Accordingly, the District Commission also directed the Opposite Parties to pay the said refundable amount, we found there is no any irregularity in the order passed by the District Commission as there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties School also hence, appeal fails. We found there is no merit in the appeal as such the order passed by the District Commission does not requires any interference hence, the appeal is also dismissed.    Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-

:ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.  No costs.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.

Member.                                                                    Judicial Member.