PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of May 2012
Filed on : 24-01-2012
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 52/2012
Between
Fathima T.M., : Complainant
Thuthuppilly house, (By Adv. Lakshmanan T.J.)
Chelekulam, Penta Queen, Padivattom,
Vengola P.O., Pin-683 554. Kochi)
And
1. The President, : Opposite parties
Parent Teachers Association, (Parties-in-person)
Kallil Government Higher
Secondary School,
Methala P.O.,
Ernakulam-683 545.
2. The Principal,
Kallil Government Higher
Secondary School,
Methala P.O.,
Ernakulam-683 545.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant’s son. Febin Mujeeb got admission to Plus One course under commerce group in the Kallil Government Higher Secondary School. On 22-06-2011 he got the allotment as per the “Ekajalakam’ introduced by the Government of Kerala. As per the policy of the Government the student has to join in the school in which he got admission at first and later if they got allocation to any other government school which they prefer can get their admission transfered. The complainant’s son decided to join Government higher secondary school Pazhamthottam instead. At the time of admission at the opposite parties’ school the complainant had remitted a sum of Rs. 1,275/- which includes Rs. 275/- being the fees prescribed by the government and Rs. 1,000/- collected by the opposite parties. Since the complainant’s son got admission at Government Higher Secondary School, Pazhamthottam, she opted the same and requested the opposite parties to issue the transfer certificate and to refund Rs. 1,000/- collected by them. Though they issued the transfer certificate they did not refund Rs. 1,000/- paid towards PTA fund to which the complainant is no more a member. The complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice demanding to pay the amount. But there was no response. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund Rs. 1,000/- together with Rs. 5,000/- each towards compensation and costs of the proceedings.
2. The version of the opposite parties.
The complainant is not a consumer as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The 2nd opposite party granted admission to the complainant’s son on 22-06-2011. The opposite parties has levied only statutory fees from the complainant. The complainant voluntarily donated Rs. 500/- each towards PTA fund and school developed fund. The first opposite party is conducting various activities and improving the infrastructural facilities of the school with the contribution of the parent teachers association in the school. This school is one of the eminent schools in the locality. The 2nd opposite party issued the transfer certificate of the complainant’s son on 05-07-2011 as and when requested for the same. At that time the complainant has not demanded refund of the above money. The first opposite party was ready and willing to refund the PTA fund. The opposite parties never offered the complainant to refund the school development fund. The opposite parties request to dismiss the complainant.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the complainant. After the filing of the written version the opposite parties did not co-operate with the further proceedings in this forum. Heard the counsel for the complainant.
4. The points that came up for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the PTA
fund and School development fund ?
iii. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs. 5,000/-
each towards compensation and costs of the proceedings to
the complainant?
5. Point No. i. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital V. Bhupesh Khurana and others 2009 CTJ 373 (Supreme Court) (CP) has held that “imparting of education by an Educational Institute for consideration falls within the ambit of service as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. The students of the institute are the consumers of the service”. In view of the above Supreme Authority we have no hesitation to hold that the complaint is maintainable in this Forum.
6. Point No. ii. Admittedly the complainant’s son was admitted at Kallil Government Higher Secondary School on 22-06-2011. At the time of admission the 2nd opposite party collected the statutory fees of Rs. 250/- and the 1st opposite party collected Rs. 500/- each towards school development fund and PTA fund respectively. During the proceedings the 1st opposite party expressed his willingness to refund the PTA fund. According to the 1st opposite party they have collected Rs. 500/- towards development of the infrastructural facilities of the school and so they are not in a position to refund the amount. But we are not agreeing with the above contention of the 1st opposite party since the complainant’s son has not enjoyed any benefits of the schemes so conceived. In view of the fact that the complainant’s son has not availed himself of any such a benefit as promised by the 1st opposite party he is not bound to be made liable to costs for want of his not being at an acknowledgement for pecuniary advantage.
7. Point No. iii. The complainant has been put unnecessarily to expense of time and money this calls for compensation of costs. We fix it as Rs. 1,000/-.
8. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:
i. The 1st opposite party shall refund the amount as per Exts. A1
and A2 together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from
the date of receipt till realization.
ii. The opposite parties shall pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant
being the costs of the proceedings.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of May 2012
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Receipt dt. 22-06-2011
A2 ; Receipt dt. 22-06-2011
A3 : lawyer notice dt. 09/07/2011
Opposite party’s Exhibits : : Nil
Copy of order despatched on :
By Post : By Hand:
