Orissa

Dhenkanal

CC/105/2022

Bidyadhar Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Princepal , Shreekrushna International School, Bhubaneswar - Opp.Party(s)

30 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DHENKANAL

                                          C.C.Case No. 105 of 2022

 

Bidyadhar Behera, aged about 40 years

Son of  Mayadhar Behera,

At: Pasasingh, PO: Belapada, Via: Gadasila,

P.S: Sadar, Dist: Dhenkanal                                         …...Complainant

                                                Versus

Principal, Shree Krishna International School,

96,Malipada, Bhubaneswar, Dist: Khordha-751003   …......Opp. Party

 

Present: Sri Saroj Kumar Sahoo, President,

                Miss Sasmita Rath, Member

Counsel: For the complainant:  Ashok Kumar Rout

                For the Opp. Party: Bishnu Prasad Sarangi & Associates

 

Date of  argument: 16.5.2023

Date of order: 30.5.2023

                                                                                   JUDGMENT

Miss Sasmita Rath, Member

                In the matter of an application U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 filed by the complainant against the Opp. Party alleging deficiency of service.

1. Very briefly, the case of the complainant stated are that the complainant being influenced with the assurance of the O.P for providing proper and early medical care/ treatment and for better education , he admitted his sons in the school of the O.P.  As per the instruction of the O.P the complainant made deposit of Rs. 63,000/- as advance on 7.3.2022 for admission of his minor son Master Soumyajit Behera in Class -VII and Rs. 80,000/- on the same day as advance for admission of his minor son Biswajit Behera in Class -VIII  and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each sons for admission with free book.  On 27.3.2022  the petitioner admitted his two minor sons in the residential Hostel of the O.P  after taking admission.  On 30.3.2022 O.P informed the complainant over phone regarding serious illness of his son Master Soumyajit  Behera.  On 30.3.2022 the complainant was informed that his son  Soumyaajit is  seriously ill and due to bad road condition and distance place he could not move on that day and on 1.4.2022 when the complainant went to the O.P school it was found that the O.P had not taken any care nor admitted his son in the hospital for which the complainant returned back with his sons to his home and also requested the O.P to return the advance amount with admission fees of his sons .  The O.P assured to refund the amount  but did not refund the amount.  On 15.4.2022 the complainant approached the O.P to refund the fees paid by him as advance by writing.  Despite written application and assurance given by the O.P to refund the fees, he failed to refund the amount  for which finding no other option the complainant sent a legal notice on 19.8.2022 to the O.P.  As the O.P did not refund the fees deposited by the complainant it amounts to unfair trade practice and also amounts to deficiency in service.  Therefore, the complainant has come up before this Commission seeking for a direction to the O.P to refund the advance amount of Rs. 163000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from 1.4.2022 till its refund along with compensation and cost of the litigation of Rs. 1,20,000/-.
2.              The Opp. Party appeared on  14.3.2023 and filed  a petition under Order IX Rule 9 Read with Section 151 of C.P.C  supported by affidavit    with a prayer to set  aside the  exparte   and to give opportunity to O.P to contest the case.  He also filed  written version.
3.              On perusal of the record we found that on 22.9.2022 notice was sent to the O.P and despite several adjournments the O.P did not appear  within the statutory period nor filed any written version within the stipulated period.  Therefore, there is no scope left to us to accept the  written version.
4.           Now on the available documents on record  and on the submissions of the respective parties it is to be decided as to whether the Opp. Party is in deficiency of service by not refund the deposited amount to the complainant despite application after withdrawal of his sons from the school.
5.            The complainant in support of his case has filed the copy of Advocate Notice dated 19.8.2022, xerox copy of money receipt No.9655 Dt. 7.3.2022 for Rs. 63,000/-, xerox copy of money receipt No.9654 Dt. 7.3.2022 for Rs. 80,000/-, Money receipt  No.9272 Dt. 7.3.2022  for Rs. 10,000/-, money receipt No.9271 Dt. 7.3.2022 for Rs. 10,000/-   and      OP registration Slip Dt. 30.3.22 of Sum Hospital Bhubaneswar .   The  complainant adduced evidence in shape of affidavit in support of his case. On the other hand the O.P filed no documents or evidence in support of his case.   The case of the complainant is that  he took admission of his two sons in the school of the O.P by paying the required fees as per the demand of the O.P.   On 27.3.2022 the petitioner admitted his  sons and  Just after two days of  admission  i.e. on 30.3.2022  he was informed that his son Master  Soumyajit Behera was seriously ill and on the next date when the complainant arrived he found that no action for primary treatment  has been taken by the O.P nor his son was taken to hospital.  Accordingly on 30.3.2022 he took his son to Hospital for treatment and being dissatisfied he withdrew his sons from the school.  The complainant made several approaches including  written application for  refund of the deposited amount but despite assurance of the O.P for refund it was not acted upon and the amount has not yet been refunded.  On the date of hearing the learned advocate Fairly submitted before us that he is ready and willing to  accept the deposited amount excluding the fees of admission paid by him.   On our perusal of the documents we find that  a sum of Rs. 63,000/- has been paid on 7.3.2022  as advance   for Soumyajit Behera towards     and a sum of Rs. 80,000/-  as advance on 7.3.2022 for Biswajit Behera for Rs. 80,000/- as advance.  We further found that the complainant has made deposit of Rs. 10,000/-  each for his sons     as admission fees for Soumyajit Behera and Biswajit Behera.  The complainant also filed a xerox copy of  Prescription dated 30.3.2022 of Sum Hospital, Bhubaneswar.  On perusal of the said prescription we found that Master Soumyajit Behera was taken to Sum Hospital for his treatment.  The evidence adduced by the petitioner in shape of affidavit  discloses that  after getting legal notice the O.P sent a letter for return of school fee except the admission fee after submission of the original money receipt.   It is further stated that the complainant on receipt of the said letter from the O.P went to the office of the O.P with original money receipt and books but O.P refused to pay the amount.  The complainant also filed the copy of the letter of the O.P vide no-184  dated 12.09.2022 , letter no-148 dt.25.05.2022 and letter no- 147 dt. 25.07.2022. On our perusal of the above letters we found that the O.P. has approved for refund of deposited school fee expect the admission fee.  There is no counter affidavit adduced by the O.P.  Now therefore, after taking into consideration of the submissions of the complainant, documents available on record as discussed above and the evidence adduced by the petitioner in shape of affidavit, we think it just and proper that the ends of justice would be best safeguarded if the Opp. Party shall refund the amount of school advance fees  received by him excluding the admission fees. Hence ordered.

                                                         

                                                                     O R D E R

The complaint is allowed in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs.The Opp. Party is directed torefunda sum of Rs. 63,000/- (Rupees sixty three thousand) only, and Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand) only to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the O.P shall pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand).Besides the Opp. Party is directed to pay cost of the litigation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only to the complainant.The compliance of the directions shall be within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.

 

(Sri Saroj Kumar Sahoo)(Miss Sasmita Rath)

•