By Sri.Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:

            This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.   The Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-

The Complainant was a plus one student in the school of Opposite Party. He joined in this school on 29.04.2019 by remitting Rs.15,700/-. Meanwhile, the Opposite Party obstructed him to do religious prayer in the school. So, he obtained Transfer Certificate from this school and got admission in another school.  At the time of getting transfer Certificate, the Opposite Party assured to give back the fees after deducting Rs.500/- as the admission fee. Collection of the above said fees is unauthorised and illegal.  The collection of this fees and denial of giving it back even after getting transfer certificate is deficiency in service on the Opposite Party. It caused mental pain to the Complainant. Hence this complaint to get back Rs.15,200/- as fees and Rs.1 Lakh as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceedings.

3. Opposite Party filed version which in short is as follows:-

They admitted that the Complainant was a plus one student in their school. They denied that the Opposite Party obstructed him from religious prayer.  For the students of Muslim community, School is providing a vehicle  for their journey to mosque for ‘’jumanamaskar’’ in between 12 noon and 2 pm every Friday accompanied by a teacher to avoid students going out of the campus in school hours and indulging in illegal activities and drug trafficking. While so, the Complainant requested for permission to attend mid day prayer ‘’luhrnamaskaram’’ in the nearby mosque on every day. Considering the secular nature of the school, the risk factor involved in sending the students out of campus and the chance of losing regular classes to the students, school denied permission.  Since, there are students of different communities, the request for mid day prayer inside the campus was also denied to the complainant. This school is always trying to preserve secular nature without hurting anybody’s religious sentiments. Aggrieved by this, the Complainant approached before the Minority Commission and the Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights. They declined the prayer of the Complainant.  As an educational institution, fees are being collected from the students and salaries are being paid to the teachers from this fees. As a school, the Opposite Party has not given any service to the Complainant. This school is to provide quality education to students of educationally backward in Wayanad District. So the Complainant is not a consumer.  So this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-

1.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of

Opposite Party?.

2.   Reliefs and Costs.

5. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1, Ext.A1 and  Ext.B1 to B4.  Both sides heard.

            6.Point No.1:- The Complainant came before this commission to get back the fees remitted by him in the Opposite Party’s school when he got admission.  The reason for that the Opposite Party did not allow him to perform his religious prayer in the school.  Ext.A1 is the fee Receipt.  According to the Complainant, since the Opposite Party denied his request, he obtained Transfer Certificate and got admission in another school. Therefore he wants to get back the fees of Rs.15,200/- which excluded the admission fee. According to him, school authorities illegally collected the fees and disallowed to refund it.  Therefore according to him there is deficiency in their service.

7.  He has given evidence as PW1. Ext.A1 is the Fee Receipt. No dispute that the Complainant was a plus one student in Opposite Party School after remitting Ext.A1 fee.  It is also an admitted fact that Opposite Party School disallowed the request of Complainant to perform religious prayer and therefore he got admission in another school. According to Opposite Party, even now the complainant is an unauthorized absentee in the school and got admission in another school without getting Transfer Certificate. Anyhow, admittedly the Complainant is not a student in this school. The foremost contention of Opposite Party is that the Complainant is not a consumer as far as the Opposite Party’s concerned. They contended that school is providing quality education to the students and there is no paid service from there.  They collected the fees for various requirements and it does not mean that they collected consideration and rendering service.  They are only giving help for education and one cannot say that it is a service coming under the provisions of Consume Protection Act.  Therefore it is to be held that the Complainant is not a consumer.

8. According to Opposite Party, their school is a secular one and they cannot allow the students from different religions to conduct their prayers inside and outside the school for security reason. School cannot be compelled to allow the students from different religious to perform prayer inside and outside the school. It is a holy place to render education. Moreover, it is evident that the Complainant had filed complaint before the Minority commission and Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights and they have also disallowed the prayer of Complainant. Ext.B1 is his petition and Ext. B2 to B4 is the orders of those commissions.  Moreover, the Complainant, without consent from the school authority, left the school and joined in other school without getting Transfer Certificate.  So, he is an unauthorised absentee in this school. So, the Complainant is not entitled to get back the school fees once remitted.  So it cannot be held that there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.

9. Point No.2:  Since Point No.1 is found against the Complainant, he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs. 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31^st day of October 2022.

Date of Filing:-03.11.2021.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:-

PW1.              Muhammed Unais. E.                                           Student.

Witness for the Opposite Party:-

                        Nil.     

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1.                  Fee Receipt.                                                             Dt:29.04.2019.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-

B1.                  Copy of complaint filed before Minority Commission.

                        Dt:07.08.2019.

B2.                  Copy of Order in MCOP No.253/2019 of Minority Commission.

                        Dt:06.01.2020.

B3.                  Copy of Order in I.A.3/2020 MCOP No.253/2019 of Minority

Commission.   Dt:05.05.2020.

B4.                  Copy of Order in CRMP No.5126/12/C2/2019/KeSCPCR.

                        Dt:14.10.2020.      

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.