Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                        Complaint No. : 312

                                                          Instituted on     : 24.05.2022

                                                          Decided on       :  28.07.2023

Sandeep Siwach son of Sh. Balbir Singh Siwach resident of House No.77, Sector-4, Rohtak.

                                                                                    ……….………..Complainant. 

                                                  Vs.

1. The Little Shri School Campus, Sector-3, Rohtak through its Principal.
2. The Little Shri School Campus, Sector-3, Rohtak through its Director.

                                                                    ..…….……….Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Sandeep Hooda, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Deepak Jain, Advocate for opposite parties.

                                                ORDER

TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is father of minor daughter named Aradhya who got admission in the Little Shri School in 3^rd Standard class during the Session 2016-17 vide admission no. 926. The said school is being run and managed by the opposite parties. The complainant paid all the dues and school fee etc. at the time of admission of his daughter to the opposite parties amounting to Rs.1,13,720/- and he also paid as refundable security amounting to Rs.6000/-. It is further submitted that complainant has been paying all the dues/fees etc. of his daughter Aradhya up to 7^th standard class regularly to the opposite parties. Due to some unavoidable domestic circumstances, the complainant wanted to withdraw the admission of his daughter from the above mentioned school in 8^th standard and thereby applied for the withdrawal of the same to the opposite parties. He got admission of his daughter in Vidya Shree International School and paid all dues and fee to the new school of his ward for the new financial year, April 2022. He also paid transportation charges etc. Thereafter the complainant visited a number of times to the office of the opposite parties to issue the School Leaving Certificate and also to refund the security amount which was deposited by the complainant at the time of the admission as refundable security. On 13.04.2022, the complainant also applied in writing to opposite parties to issue School Leaving Certificate and to refund the security amount of Rs.6000/-. On 17.04.2022, the complainant again requested through email. Thereafter on 20.04.2022 and 29.04.2022, the complainant also sent reminders to the opposite parties. It is further submitted that on 25.04.2022, the opposite parties accepted the application for School Leaving Certificate and illegally demanded Rs.13600/- including the amount fee from April-2021 to May 2022 etc. However complainant has paid the tuition fee of his ward in the new school also for the period April 2022 to May 2022. Inspite of repeated requests the opposite parties had not issued the School Leaving Certificate to the complainant. As such, the act and conduct of the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to issue School Leaving Certificate of the daughter of the complainant and to refund security amount with interest of 20% per annum to the complainant. It is further directed to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared and submitted their reply that school is run by registered society and principal is only care taker. It is further submitted that  as per school policy if any student wants to withdraw his admission and moves an application in this regard upto 7^th March of that year the school will refund the security amount and if he applies upto 7^th April of the next session the fee for the April would be charged but the applied after 7^th April the fee for the month April and May would be charged. In the present case, the complainant applied on 13.04.2022 so as per rules he was bound to pay the fee for the month of April and May but as per the Government policy the schools were directed not to claim any fee for April and May so he was not charged and knowledge of the policy came into the notice of the opposite parties in the end of May 2022. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.                Learned counsel for the complainant failed to produce evidence and as such, evidence of complainant was closed vide order dated 20.04.2023 of this Commission. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party submitted that reply filed by him be read as their evidence, tendered document Ex.R-1 and close his evidence vide separate statement dated 19.05.2023.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                 In the present case it is admitted fact in para no.15 of the reply that:  “The complainant applied on 13.04.2022 so as per rules he was bound to pay the fee for the month of April and May but as per the Govt. Policy the schools were directed not to claim any fee for April and May so he was not charged and knowledge of the policy came into the notice of respondents in the end of May 2022.” After perusal of the written statement and documents placed on record, it has been established that the Govt. has directed the school not to charge fee for the month of April and May  and this fact has been mentioned by the school authorities in their written statement. Moreover it has been submitted by the school authorities that it came into their notice belatedly. To prove this fact they have not placed on record any document that on 13.04.2022 it was not within the knowledge of school authorities that the Govt. has issued some directions regarding the fee that if the student withdraws his admission from his present school and moved to another school, then the school will not charge fee for the month of April and May. It has been established  that school authorities demanded a fee for the month of April and May from the student despite the repeated requests of the complainant(father of the student)  and the complainant had to file the present complaint before this Commission and has suffered mental agony and harassment.

6.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as well as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.  

7.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

28.07.2023                                       

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.