BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSURU.
Consumer Complaint (C.C.)No. 1506/2016
Complaint filed on 05.10.2016
Date of Judgement.11.05.2017
PRESENT : 1. Shri Ramachandra M.S., B.A., LL.B.,
PRESIDENT
2. Shri Thammanna,Y.S., B.Sc., LL.B.,
MEMBER
Complainant/s : 1. Mr. Safiulla Khan
S/o Mr. Zafrulla khan,
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at Flat no.703,
7th Floor, Sankalp Central park,
Begonia Block, Jawa main road,
Yadavagiri, Mysuru-570020.
(Sri M.S., Manjunath., Advocate)
V/s
Opponent /s : The Principal and Trustee
The learning Curve International
School (TLC)
CA # 07, Vijayanagar II Stage,
Mysuru-570017.
Represented by Mr. Karthik
Managing Trustee,
(Sri N. G. Swamy., Advocate)
Nature of complaint | : | Deficiency in service |
Date of filing of complainant | : | 05.10.2016 |
Date of Issue notice | : | 28.11.2016 |
Date of Order | : | 11.05.2017 |
Duration of proceeding | : | 11 months 6 day |
SHRI RAMACHANDRA . M.S.,
PRESIDENT
JUDGEMENT
The complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking for the relief to repay the deposited fee amount and such other relief.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant being interested in admitting his children Numa Khan for 8th grade and Faraaz Khan for 3rd grade respectively in opposite party’s educational institution known as the learning Curve international school, situated at CA # 7, vijayanagar, 2nd stage, Mysore, has paid the requisite fee including deposit, tuition fee, registration fee and other charges,
3. It is submitted that, subsequently complainant came to know that, there is lot of misunderstandings and unrest in opposite party’s educational institution which finally resulted in resignations of majority of the teaching staff in school before the start of the academic year itself. The complainant being tensed about the future of the children and related issues of the school, verified with the school authorities and after their admission he requested the school to cancel the admission and demanded to refund the entire amount paid by him with respect to the admission of the children vide his mail dated 3rd July 2016. The opposite party has replied admitting the loss of staff members and other issues of the school in their mail dated 4th July 2016 and stated that the board will take decision about it, but failed to refund the amount.
4. The complainant being realized that the admission of his kids could not justify in their future. Complainant opted to continue the education of his kids with same educational institution DPS, Mysore. Thus complainant has pleaded and demanding the principal, trustee personally and through mails for refund of admission and tuition fee amount as still the academic year has not begun. The copies of emails are herewith produced annexed B, for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.
5. It is submitted that, even after such repeated demands and by mails the opposite party has failed to refund as demanded, thus aggrieved by this the complainant issued legal notice dated 20.08.2016 which has been served on the opposite party vide RPAD acknowledgement dated 24.08.2016. the opposite party has replied to the legal notice vide replay notice dated 13.09.2016 the copy of the legal notice and postal receipt dated 20.08.2016 the postal acknowledgement dated 24.08.2016, reply legal notice dated 13.09.2016 are here with produced for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble forum as annexure C.D and E for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble forum.
6. It is submitted that the act of the opposite party having failed to refund the said amount of Rs. 1,80,700/- amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant has to face lot of financial hardship and inconvenience due to the unfair acts of the opposite party . As the complainant having no alternative has paid the fees amounting to @ Rs. 1,50,000/- to DPS Mysore on 11.07.2016 where his children are continuing their studies at present.
7. The notice to the opposite party duly served represented by counsel and filed version by contending that they denies the allegation of deficiency in service on their part. When there is no deficiency in service, the question of granting the relief to the complainant does not arise. Further opposite party contends that opposite party institution is self managed and resources to the school is from the fee received from admission of children. The maintenance cost and expenditure are pre-calculated and number of children also restricted to the preset out norms. Asking refund by withdrawing children by the complainant is unfair and also repudiation of contractual obligation by not sending his children as agreed and admitted and complainant taking plea under the guise of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice do not sustains on all these counts opposite party prays for the dismissal of complainant.
8. The complainant and opposite party filed examination in chief affidavit and also filed documents in support of their claim and defence. Heard arguments perused documents and written arguments reserved for orders.
9. The points that arise for our consideration are;-
- Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party by not refunding the admission fee of Rs. 1,80,700/- and thereby proves that he is entitle for the relief sought?
- What order?
10. Our answer to the above points is as follows;
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
11 . Point No.1:- The complainant got admitted his children Numa Khan for 8th stranded and Faraaz khan for 3rd stranded in opposite party educational institution i.e., The learning curve international school(TLC) situated at CA # 7, Vijayanagar, 2nd stage, Mysore, and also paid pre scribed fee of Rs. 1,80,700/- along with other charges in respected of admission of his two children, these averments admission, and payment of admission and other charges is also proved fact by complainant with relevant documents in support of his claims, these fact is also very clearly admitted by the opposite party there is no dispute between these two in respect of the above transaction of admission and payment of fee.
12. Further the only dispute between complainant and opposite party is that complaint claims the refund of admission fee of Rs. 1,80,700/- in lieu of withdrawal of admission of his children from opposite party school and opposite party contends that there is no deficiency in service from his side and they not liable to refund the admission fee and further withdrawal of admission of complainant children is for his own assigned reasons. When we examined these reasons which is assigned by complainant for withdrawal of admission of his children from opposite party school, apart from making the mere allegation against opposite party institution. He has not produced any cogent and convincing evidence to establish his contention and thereby whatever allegation and claims made by complainant remained as disproved fact. When complainant is miserable failed to prove his complaint, he is not entitle for the relief sought.
13. Further the opposite party in the version has contended that it is a private educational institution started and self maintained, managed by resources, from the fee received from admission of children . The cost and expenditures are pre-calculated and divided among all the students and number of children also restricted to the preset out norms and thereafter opposite party contends that after the withdrawal of complainants children from their school that vacancy is not filled with any new students that seat remained vacant till, this day. The opposite party has also relied on one judgement of Hon’ble National Commission New Delhi in Revision petition 2684 of 2014 , between FIIT JEE Ltd V/s S.Balavignesh rendered by justice V.K. Jain. The principal of ruling is “ in a case where the seat vacated on account of withdrawal by student during the starting of the course remains vacant and no other student is admitted against the vacant seat, the refusal of institution to refund the fee cannot be said to be an unfair trade practice , though such a term may constitute an unfair trade practice in a case where the coaching institute admits a student in place of the student who withdraws midway the course and thereby suffers no financial loss.”
The opposite party has relied on the principles of the above ruling and by adopting the same he claims that he is not liable to refund admission amount to complainant under such circumstance he claims that there is no deficiency in service on his part.
14. Further opposite party has produced two attendance certified copy documents in support of his contention on perusal of these documents it is evident and crystal clear that the seat which was vacated by the complainant children from opposite party institution is not at all filled by any other students and it is still remained vacant from these facts it is a proved fact that the opposite party has successfully established the fact of vacant of seat and also made out that the principles and guide line of the above ruling is aptly applicable to this complaint.
15. Under such circumstance, in view of all the above facts and the guide line of Hon’ble National Commission we of the opinion that the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service an account of that opposite party is not liable to refund the admission amount and other relief as prayed by complainant. When such being the case the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
16. According to this forum we answered Point no.1 in the Negative and pass the following:
17. Point no.2:- For the above discussion we here by proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
- The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2.Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.
(Dictated to the stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on the 11th May 2017)
Shri Thammanna Y.S., Shri Ramachandra M.S.,
Member. President.
