<br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainants against the Ops in brief is that OP 1 is an International boarding school whereas OP 2 is its Principal. That they admitted their son by name Raag for 11th standard class studies in the OP 1 as a boarding student on 16-08-2008. That within a month thereafter their son was selected as the member of the school soccer team and spaash team considering his talents. He had earned trust of his classmates and teachers. He had attended 33 days class, had not involved in any short of mis-behaviour in the school. That they received a telephonic call from 1st OP on 22-09-2008 intimating them, that their son will be sent home with an indefinite suspension. Then they requested the Ops to verify and check the activities of their son before they take decision. But the Ops refused to yield to their appeal. On 22-09-2008 they received a letter from OP 2 informing them that their son was placed under in-definite suspension because of certain violation of school rules. The letter further contain their son’s un-ruly behaviour on which he was suspended pending a final decision of board of governors of the school. That their son was placed in solitary confinement in a room locked without even toilet facilities. Then OP 2 had told their son that he has been expelled from the school, though the rules of OP 1 school state in all cases of violations a report will be issued by the staff witness to the Deputy Principal Pastoral. But none of the procedures were followed while dealing with their son. The allegation of mis-behaviour is unacceptable and the Ops have taken unilateral decision in permanently suspending their son. Then they replied to the Ops letter dated 23-09-2008 vide reply dated 24-09-2008 clarifying the issues raised by the Ops. Further requesting them to arrange meeting for resolving the issue but Op 2 refused to meet them. The Ops it is found that without any basis made false allegations and a request for resolving and to hear them is ignored and against their request transfer certificate was issued and only a part of the fee of Rs.1,00,904/- was sent to them through a cheque as against total amount paid by them Rs.4,15,576/- . Therefore the complainants attributing deficiency in the service of the Ops and inflicting, humiliation, discriminatory treatment and agony have disrupted the career of their son and thereby they referring to the legal notice they got issued have prayed for a direction to the Ops to refund Rs.3,14,672/- with interest @ 18% per annum and to award Rs.5,00,000/- as damages towards their deficient service with cost. <br /> <br /> Ops have appeared through their advocate and filed version contending that the compliant is not maintainable that the complainants are parties to an agreement and undertaken that they will abide by the school discipline, regulation and that they will not seek refund of tuition fee as such are now estopped from making any claim. That any dispute arise between the Ops and the parents shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the board of Directors of Op 1 school and as such the complaint is not maintainable. That the complainants have no right to seek refund of either partial or full tuition fee as agreed under the agreement. Ops admitting that the complainant’s son was admitted to the 11 standard during August 2008 but denied that the complainant’s son had abide by the school discipline. On the contrary the complainants son had involved in bullying, ragging of other students including physical violence, invasion of privacy of other students, physical intimidation and thefts. It has maintained zero tolerance to indiscipline and as such they have no option but to suspend the student from the school with a notice dated 23-09-2008. That the complainants were not interested in facing enquiry as they wanted a safe exit to their son without a stigma and they have voluntarily withdrawn from the school. As a human consideration they have allowed the complainants to with draw their child and refund a part of the amount and they by denying all other allegations have stated that they are not liable to refund the balance amount and to pay the compensation and thereby have prayed for dismissal of the compliant. OP 2 has adopted the version of OP 1. <br /> <br /> In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the 1st complainant and one Dr. K.P.Gopala Krishna, Chairman of OP 1 have filed their affidavit evidence. Counsel for OP 2 filed a memo adopting affidavit evidence of OP 1. The complainants alongwith the complaint have produced a copy of the letter they received from OP 2, a copy of letter containing certain procedure to be adopted by OP 1 which also contain certain violations, Copy of a letter that the 1st OP addressed to the 2nd OP, copy of the statements containing ledger account of the pocket money of the complainants son with a copy of the legal notice they got issued to the Ops and reply they received from OP 1. Ops have produced certain letters said to be the complaints given by some students of OP 1 school against the complainants son. Ops have also produced an un-authenticated unsigned report concerning the son of the complainants and one Rohan shetty. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records. Letter Ops have also produced a copy of the agreement entered into between the complainants and themselves regarding admission of the complainant’s son to the OP 1 school. <br /> <br /> On consideration of the above materials, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainants prove that the permanent suspension <br /> of their son namely Raag who was studying in 11th standard <br /> from the class by the Ops is arbitrary without any basis and <br /> that amounts to deficiency in their service? <br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complainants are entitled for the relief sought for?<br /> <br /> Our findings are as under:-<br /> <br /> Point No: 1 in the affirmative.<br /> Point No: 2:see the final order.<br /> REASONS: POINT No:1:: <br /> <br /> The fact that OP 1 claim to be an International boarding school had given admission to the complainants son by name Raag was studying in 11th standard during the academic year 2008-2009 by paying Rs.4,15,576/- on 16/08/2008 is not at all in dispute. It is the grievance of the complainants that after 33 days after admission of their son to the 1st OP school, they received a telephonic call on 22-09-2008 were shocked to listen to them about suspension of their son from the school for an indefinite time. Their further grievances that, they then approached OPs by going to the school and requested the Ops to allow them to investigate the allegations before they take decision was not yielded. On the next day on 23-09-2008 they received a letter from the 2nd OP informing them that their son was placed under indefinite suspension because of certain violations pending decision of the board of Governors of Op No:1. The complainants have produced the letter of OP 2 dated 23-09-2008 in which the 2nd OP has alleged as if the complainants son had involved in bullying and ragging of other students including physical violence, theft of other students belongings, invasion of privacy of other students and physical intimidation of other students. It is further stated when OP 2 had gone to the dinning hall for having lunch that administrative staff were terrified and he called some staff to contain the complainants son from that rude behavior. In this letter OP 2 has further stated which is very much material which is reproducing as under: <br /> <br /> “In the light of these extreme circumstances the school has no option but to impose an indefinite suspension upon Raag pending review of all the evidence by Board of Governors at their next meeting which is yet to be scheduled. I shall advise you of the decision of the Board as soon as it becomes available. Kindly note Board decisions are final and there is no appeal or process against them.”<br /> <br /> <br /> As against this letter the 1st complainant on the next day the 24-09-2008 sent a letter to the 2nd OP informing him about the long discussion he had with the son regretting in is son having had borrowed another boy’s shoes for trekking in Coorg and conceded the lapse on their part in not providing the right foot wear as they were not made known of the requirements. He further, requested OP 2 to have an early meeting to clarify the matters and to permit their son to resume studies. But OP 1 on 16-10-2008 found to had sent a cheque for Rs.1,00,904/- to the 1st complainant sending refund of partial amount of the total amount paid by them. Thereby giving an end to the further correspondences impliedly throwing the complainants son out of the OP 1 school. Thereafter the 1st complainant again sent a letter to OP 1 on 17-12-2008 demanding refund of the balance amount and also got issued a legal notice to the Ops in this regard. <br /> <br /> A literature produced by OP 1 reflecting disciplinary issues and other procedure followed in their school also contain violations. Under this word violation certain violations are mentioned therein as illustrative but not exhaustive and stated if a student committing such mis-conductor is violations subject to disciplinary action and its further sentences which are very important are reproduced as under: <br /> <br /> “In all cases a report will be issued by the staff witness to the Deputy Principal Pastoral. Records are kept of all violations and all consequences issued are recorded in school reports which form the basis of transcripts that are sent to Universities”<br /> <br /> <br /> The said literature further says record of the report shall be maintained in the Principal office. But the opponents absolutely have not at all maintained any such complaints and records as indicated above against thus student and is appeared that they had noting to maintain and therefore they do not have them.<br /> <br /> After receipt of affidavit evidence of both the parties the compliant was posted for arguments on merits. At the time of arguments we questioned the counsel for the Ops the basis on which the 2nd OP formed opinion of mis-conduct of the boy for suspending from the school. Then the Advocate for the Ops submitted that the affidavit evidence filed by the Op 1 is sufficient to prove such allegations. At that stage this forum interfered and questioned the counsel for the Ops about the propriety of OP 2 in taking such a drastic action against the boy in the absence of legal basis. Then the counsel for the Ops took adjournment to produce documents. This has been recorded in the order sheet on 11-01-2010. Thereafter the counsel for the Ops went on taking adjournments to 18-01-2010, then to 27-01-2010 again to 01-02-2010 then to 08-02-2010 again to 16-02-2010 and on that day produced certain letters claiming to be as the complaints received from some students against the by. The counsel for the complainants filed objection to these documents by contending that those documents were not produced earlier and they disclose those letters produced by Ops are not authenticated and are nothing but fabricated. With this we shall refer to the letters that the Ops produced, to find out whether those letters could be construed as the complaints given by any students to OP 1 or staff of OP 1 against the son of the complainants and they could be acted upon. <br /> <br /> We are seeing a letter said to be that of one Rohan sethi’s in this he has stated that one Rohan shetty stole his watch which was given to him by his mother then he spoke about this to the son of the complainants who in turn told that he came to know about the theft. It is further stated as if the complainants son bullied by threatening him that he will kill him once, and that Raag uses slipper provided to him by Rohan shetty. This letter do not contain any date, month and year and details of this Rohan shetty whether he is a student if so student of which class. We are seeing another letter of N.S.Shah dated 21-09-2008 in this it is stated while he was talking on the telephone he overheard the complainants son and one Rohan shetty talking on the phone that they have stolen someone’s watch and also over heard Raag saying that students here are very dumb and do not come to know even if they steal anything. The 3rd letter of 22-09-2008 its author cannot be identified. In which it is alleged as if the complainants son had slapped him. It cannot also be make out whether the author of this letter is a student or staff. Similarly we see another letter alleging as if complainants son has been ragging and physically assaulting him and goes to his room and sleeps on his bed etc. Then one more letter of one Rohan shetty who alleges certain mis-behaviour of the boy. As could be found from these letters and as already stated above it is not possible to find out who are these complainants that is the authors of these letters as to when they where given and to whom they where given. Though in two of the letters we find the date, month and year but we do not find any indication to whom these complaints were given. If such complaints were given by either students or staff of OP 1 they must have been given to the class teacher or to the Principal OP 2. But these letters do not bear any initial or signature or seal of OP 1 or any one else. Ops have also not stated in their version having had received these compliant against the son of the complainants from any of these complainants. Even assuming that these complaints where received by OP 1 or OP 2 they must have been in the custody of OP 2. But absolutely we find no such evidence of OP 2 having had received such complaints. <br /> <br /> On perusal of the allegations of the Ops made against the son of the complainants it is clear they are all imaginary are invovated for the purpose of eliminating the boy from the school. It is further explicit that these alleged misbehaviour of the boy was not within the personal knowledge of 2nd OP. Though the 2nd OP in his letter dated 23-09-2008 addressed to the complainants has stated when he had gone to dinning hall for lunch he noticed mis-behaviour of Raag. Then he called the staff to contain him but OP 2 the principal has not filed affidavit to this effect nor he got the affidavit of his staff who were called to the dinning hall to contain the boy in proof of his mis-behavior filed. Even the principal OP 2 as contended by them and argued by their counsel has the power to have the student removed from the school and sole decision lie with him but that power or discretion shall not be arbitrary illegal but must be based on legal and tangible materials convincing to resort to such a drastic and major punishment. In the case on hand OP 2 who has removed the boy by a final suspension from the institution has not placed any document, an order or a decision taken in this regard based on any materials, But none of the Ops have passed any written order in this behalf for removal of that boy. Though we find an unauthenticated and unsigned report but that cannot be considered or construed as a report against the boy. We therefore on considering the entire materials placed before us we find no basis on which the Ops have removed the boy. The letter of the principal dated 23-09-2008 addressed to the complainant discloses as if they had no option but to impose an indefinite suspension on the boy pending review of all evidences by the board of Governors at their next meeting which is yet to be scheduled. Therefore it is clear from the letter of the 2nd OP that indefinite suspension of the boy was subject to review decision to be taken by the board of Governors in their next meeting which would have been final. But the Ops have not produced any documents to prove that decision was taken by the board of Governors in connection with suspension of boy by OP 2 as such it indicate that the 2nd OP had no absolute power of removing a boy from the institution but his decision of suspension was subject to the approval of the Board of Governors. But the Ops it is found ignoring the request of the complainants to hear them about the allegations made by the complainants without heeding to their request have sent back a part of fee paid by the complainants indicating that their doors are shut to the complainants.<br /> <br /> The Ops have stated as if the complainants themselves in order to avoid enquiry, being satisfied with the charges made against their son, withdrawn their son from the school. But that allegation is proved to be false because the letters of the 1st complainant addressed to OP 2 reveal their appeal and repeated requests to give them an opportunity of being heard and allow their boy to resume studies. But the Ops it is noticed did not respond to them but sent a cheque by refunding a small amount out of huge sum they received. This attitude of the Ops speak in volume about the un-ethical method they adopt, inhuman treatment they given to the students and parents and malicious allegations they make against young students which cast black mark or stigma on their career. The Ops have recklessly acted in this case which in our view is nothing short of deficiency in their service and un-fair trade practice. The Ops who had received total fee of Rs.4,15,576/- have sent cheque refunding only Rs.1,00,904/- without assigning reasons for with holding the balance huge money. No doubt the complainants under the agreement have agreed not to claim refund of the fee, but under the circumstances of this case the Ops cannot take shelter under those clauses of these agreement and deny the complainants their money and education to their son. It is further found from the letter of 1st complainant addressed to OP 1 the Ops themselves had sent the boy with luggage on their own through a driver had not even returned the suitcase of the boy. The Ops though have produced a copy of certain particulars of expenditure. But on considering the stay of the boy with Ops for a mere 33 days of that academic year, the Ops are only entitled to deduct a proportionate amount and not a major amount. Hence we say that a sum of Rs.50,000/- could be a reasonable expenditure that the Ops have incurred on the boy for 33 days. It is on considering these facts and circumstances we, in addition to ordering refund of the balance amount find it just to impose punitive damages with a view to restrain Ops from continuing this sort of unfair trade practice. We therefore, answer Point NO:1 in the affirmative and pass the following order. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed. Ops 1 and 2 held jointly and severally liable to refund the balance fee of Rs.2,64,672/- to the complainants within 60 days from the date of this order. <br /> <br /> Ops shall jointly and severally pay punitive damages of Rs.1,00,000/-, out of which Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to the complainants and the balance Rs.50,000/- shall be remitted to legal aid account of this forum within 60 days from the date of this order. <br /> <br /> Ops on their failure to pay the above amounts within 60 days from the date of this order they shall pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment. <br /> <br /> OPs shall also pay Rs.3000/- cost to the complainants. <br />