Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/186/2021

Manish Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The International School Bangalore - Opp.Party(s)

Pulkit Sachdeva adv

12 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	186/2021
Date of Institution	:	17.03.2021
Date of Decision	:	12.04.2024

 

                                 

                    

Manish Goyal aged about 47 years s/o Sh.Surinder Kumar Goyal r/o H.No.618, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh -160022.

 

                           ...  Complainant.

Versus

The International School Bangalore, NAFL Valley, Whitefield Sarajpur Road, Near Dommasandra Circle, Bangalore-562125 through its Registrar.

…. Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Present:-
	Sh.Pulkit Sachdeva, Counsel for complainant along with Sh.Kartik Parmod Goyal, Advocate Sh.Sudhanshu Makker, Counsel for OP.

      

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.), LLM,PRESIDENT

1.        The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as amended up-to-date alleging therein that vide e-mail dated 23.12.2019, the complainant enquired about the admission process for 8^th standard in the OP-School for his son and in response to which, the OP vide e-mail dated 24.12.2019 explained the procedure for admission to the sessions commencing from August, 2020, subject to payment towards non-refundable registration fee of Rs.15,000/- and after clearing the internal entrance test and interview subject to seat availability. The OP vide e-mail dated 26.02.2020 sent offer letter to the complainant for granting admission to the complainant’s son to Grade 8 as a Boarder for the academic year commencing from August, 2020 and required him to deposit Rs.9,98,500/- as advance out of Rs.15,46,000/- and remaining amount was to be paid in November, 2020. Accordingly, the complainant transferred the amount of Rs.9,98,500/- to the OP through bank transfer on 11.03.2020, which was acknowledged vide email dated 12.03.2020. Due to Covid-19, the session could not commenced in the month of August, 2020. Vide e-mail dated 05.11.2020, the Opposite Party offered the following three options to choose from, which are reproduced as under:

1. To allow Rehaan to start at TISB in January, as planned, with our continued distance learning program.
2. To defer Rehaan's start at TISB until August 2021
3. To withdraw Rehaan's place at TISB completely

              The complainant vide e-mail dated 01.12.2020  decided to withdraw his son's admission and requested for a refund of the fees already paid on 11.03.2020 and the said request was acknowledged vide e-mail dated 02.12.2020. However, the OP had refunded partial amount of Rs.8,03,500/- leaving the balance of Rs.1,95,000/- .  It has further been averred that in response to e-mail dated 26.12.2020, the OP vide e-mail dated 28.12.2020 informed the complainant that the amount of Rs.1,95,000/- is non-refundable as per the fee policy.  Finally, the complainant got served the OP with the legal notice dated 19/20.01.2021 requiring the OP to refund the remaining amount with interest, compensation etc. but to no effect.     Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the OP to refund the remaining amount of Rs.1,95,000/- along with interest, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.

2.        After service of notice upon the OP, they filed their written version and while admitting the factual matrix  of the case, it has been stated that the Complainant was also informed about the admission procedure, the admission policy and the fee structure, vide email dated 22/01/2020. The admission fee structure for Session commencing August, 2020 clearly mentioned at Sr. No. 13 under 'Special Instructions regarding Payment of Fee' that the registration fee, admission fee and School fee paid are non-refundable. It has further been stated that in the application form, both parents i.e. the complainant and Ms. Kajal Goyal signed a declaration that they have understood and accepted the School's admission policy. The declaration signed is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

       "DECLARATION: 1. Manish Goyal, hereby declare that the above information is complete and factually accurate in all respects and that should any misrepresentation be committed here; the applicant's admission will be at risk. I have understood and accept the school's admission policy and will abide by the school's final decision. TISB is authorised to communicate with the previous school/schools to verify past records and history should the need arise."

              It has further been stated that the offer letter was accompanied by the Parent Agreement, Medical Form and the Fee Invoice and as per Clause (f) of the Agreement, the fees once made, whether in part or in full is not to be refunded except on medical grounds and accepted by Principal.  It has further been stated that though the OP-School was under no obligation to refund the fees paid by the complainant in terms of clause (5) of the Parent Agreement yet in the given facts and circumstances where the entire world was severely hit by pandemic conditions, the OP-School, on the basis of considered request of the complainant and the communication sent to complainant by OP-School, allowed the ward-Reeyan Goyal to be withdrawn from the OP-School and all payments except the Admission Fee were also refunded, purely on humanitarian grounds.  However, the admission fee of Rs. 1,95,000/- was not payable to the complainant as per Clause 13 of the Fee Schedule reproduced above.  It has further been stated that the Admission fee is charged by OP-School so as to meet out the administration expenses incurred during admission process and other ancillary expenses, which the OP-School bona fidely did in the case of Complainant as well. The complainant has thus, got no legal right whatsoever to claim the refund of Admission fee of Rs. 1,95,000/- . The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.        The complainant filed replication to the written reply of the Opposite Parties and controverted their stand and reiterating his own.
4.        Parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
5.        We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties  and have gone through the documents on record.
6.        From the submissions of the parties and the documentary evidence on file, it is observed that the complainant’s son took admission in 9^th standard of the OP-School commencing from August, 2020 by depositing Rs.9,98,500/- as advance money out of Rs.15,46,000/- and remaining amount was to be paid in November, 2020.  It is also an admitted that due to covid-19 pandemic/restrictions, the OP did not commence the session nor the complainant’s son even attended a single class in the OP-School. 
7.        Undisputedly, on receipt of the request of the complainant for refund of the deposited amount, the OP had refunded Rs.8,03,500/- only and remaining amount of Rs.1,95,000/- was retained by the OP on the ground that the admission fee and the school fee is not refundable as per the school admission policy/procedure.  In our considered view, the OP-school cannot be allowed to forfeit the huge amount of Rs.1,95,000/- under the garb of the arbitrary and unfair policy/procedure of the OP-School. Otherwise also, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in its judgment titled as “Nipun Nagar Versus Symbosis Institute of International Business”, I (2009) CPJ 3 (NC), has held that any clause saying that fee once paid shall not be refundable, are untenable and unfair and therefore not enforceable.
8.        Since the session to which the complainant’s son took admission did not start even for a single day and the school was closed /shut during the entire session and, therefore, the OP had no right to forfeit even a single penny paid by the complainant. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the act of the OP forfeiting Rs.1,95,000/- is not only arbitrary but also amounts to unfair trade practice on its part.
9.        In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OP is directed to refund Rs.1,95,000/-  along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of its deposit till its actual realization.
10.        This order be complied with by the OP within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
11.        The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
12.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission 12.04.2024
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER