| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 401 of 16.10.2017 Decided on: 2.3.2021 Balbir Singh aged about 50 years, son of late Sh.Mahinder Singh, resident of House No.16-C, Ekta Colony, Udham Singh Nagar, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus The Principal/Managing Director, Excelsior Convent School, Near Village Faggan Majra, Bus Stand, Sirhind Road, Patiala. …………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member ARGUED BY Sh.R.S.Lakhanapal,counsel for complainant. Sh.Vikas Mittal, counsel for OP. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Balbir Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against The Principal/Managing Director Excelsior Convent School (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s)
Facts of the complaint. - Briefly the case of the complainant is that his son Simrandeep Singh took admission in the school of OP in 10+1 class arts group for the session 2017-18 and the OP charged free of Rs.31700/-.It is averred that son of the complainant did not attend the classes except 3-4 days and withdrew his son from the school.The OP returned Rs.7200/- to the complainant and rest of the amount is lying pending with the OP. Complainant approached the OP for the payment of the same but the OP refused to return the same. Complainant got served legal notice dated 9.8.2017 upon the OP who sent the reply dated 14.8.2017 stating wrong facts. The OP has no right to retain the balance amount of Rs.24,500/- with it. The non refund of the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OP release the balance amount and pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation.
Reply/written statement - Upon notice OP appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the present complaint is false and frivolous and the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.
- On merits, it is admitted that son of the complainant got admission in the school of the OP and the OP charged Rs.31,700/-. It is averred in the application wrote by the complainant it is mentioned that as the school is at a far distance from his house, so the child could not regularly come to school and without prior permission gave letter dated 25.7.2017 for discontinuing the studies of his child and asked for the refund of fee and as per rules Rs.7200/-was refunded to the complainant and admission fee, registration fee and monthly tuition fee could not be refunded as the child of the complainant was admitted in the school in the month of July,2017 as an exceptional case for the session from April 2017 to March 2018 and no fresh admission was to be made on that seat. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
-
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Ex.C1 to C3 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.V.N.Aggarwal, alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP2 and closed the evidence.
- The complainant has also filed written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
-
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant is consumer of the OP as son of the complainant Simrandeep Singh took admission in class 10+1 arts group and Rs.31700/-was paid to the OP. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant withdrew his son from the school but the OP has returned Rs.7200/- and remaining amount has not been paid back, so the complaint be allowed.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has argued that the complainant is not the consumer of the OP as defined under the Consumer Protecion Act. The ld. counsel further argued that there is no fault of the school as Rs.7200/-was legally refunded and no more amount is to be refunded, so complaint be dismissed.
- To prove the case Sh. Balbir Singh has tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint. Ex.C1 is the receipt of the school dated July,2017 of Rs.31,700/-,Ex.C2 is legal notice and Ex.C3 is reply to legal notice.
- On behalf of OP Sh.V.N.Aggarwal has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written statement,Ex.OP1 is rules of CBSE,Ex.OP2 is letter written by Balbir Singh to the school, in which it is mentioned that his son got admission on 11.7.2017 in +1 arts but due to the school is at far distance from his house so child would not come regular to the school and wanted to cancel his enrollment and refund his fee at it would be a great favour .After this letter was written to the school, the school has refunded Rs.7200/- i.e. sports fee and test fee to the complainant and admission fee of Rs.1600/-, four months fee of Rs.8000/-and other funds of Rs.500/- was not refunded.
- In the present case the consumer is Simrandeep Singh and the head note of this complaint is defective as there is no relationship between the complainant and the OP as this case has not been filed by Simrandeep Singh and if he is minor through his father as guardian. So Balbir Singh was not a student of the school where he took any admission So he is not a consumer of the OP under the Consumer Protection Act.
- Now coming to the merits of the case, there is no fault of the school as Simrandeep Singh himself has taken the admission and he has deposited the fee and he himself had withdrawn from the school. Letter Ex.OP2 which was written by Balbir Singh is totally frivolous as when the admission was taken in the school, it was very well known to the complainant that the school is at distance from his house.The school has lost one seat as Simrandeep Singh withdrew from the school. It is not the case of the complainant that the school had forced the complainant for the admission of Simrandeep Singh.
- So due to our above discussion, there is no merit in the complaint, as well as there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the school and the school had already refunded Rs.7200/-as per rules.So the complaint is dismissed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
ANNOUNCED DATED:2.3.2021 Y.S.Matta Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
