BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT

PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC

                                          SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.

Saturday, 5^th July 2014

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.  11 / 2013

P.H. Pavan Kumar Reddy, Minor, Rep. by

guardian and natural father P. Anki Reddy,

S/o Maddelati Reddy, 45 years, Agriculture,

Kondapuram Village and Post,

Donnipadu Mnadal, Kurnool District.

(amended as per orders in I.A. No. 7/2014, dt. 2-4-2014)                  Complainant.

Vs.

1.   The Principal, Hyderabad Public School,

      Opp. To RIMS Hospital, Kadapa.

2.   The Chairman, Hyderabad Public School,

      Sardarpetal Road, Beghampet, Hyderabad.                             Opposite parties.

This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 30-06-2014 and perusing complaint and other material papers on record and on hearing the arguments of Sri                   K. Krishna Murthy, Advocate for complainant and Opposite parties are appeared as in person and the matter is having stood over for consideration this day, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Sri M.V.R. Sharma, Member),

1.                This Complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 requesting this forum to direct the Opposite parties:-

(a) To pay the amount of Rs. 32,500/- school fee.

(b) To pay Rs. 30,000/- towards expenditure along with costs.

2.                The brief averments of the complaint are that, the complainant’s son namely P.M. Praveen Kumar Reddy, previously studied 6^th and 7^th class in O.P.1 school.   For admission of 8^th class of his son paid a sum of Rs. 32,500/- through challan dt.                                28-8-2010.   Afterwards due to ill health his son namely P.H. Pavan Kumar Reddy, (amended as per orders in I.A. No. 7/2014, dt. 2-4-2014) not joined in O.P.1 school due to ill health and not taken any services of O.P.1 school.  There after he demanded for refund of amount paid to O.P.1.   

3.                The complainant further stated that the complainant got issued a notice to the O.P.1, dt. 16-2-2012 and there is no response from O.P’s and also he requested so many times orally for return of amount i.e. admission fee.  There is no response from O.P.1 and he sent a copy of notice to O.P.2 and O.P.2 returned notice to the complainant, saying that the complainant has to approach to O.P.1. 

4.                Counter filed by O.P.2 and the same is adopted by O.P.1 along with a memo.   

5.                The O.P.2 stated in his counter complainant admitted his son namely P.H. Praveen Kumar was on 20-2-2008 in 6^th class in the school as a boarder.    After completion of 7^th class in 2010 he was promoted to 8^th class there after he paid                           Rs. 32,500/- on 25-5-2010 towards 1^st installment fee for the academic year 2010-11.  The said amount was paid towards admission fee for 8^th class is not true.  The school reopened on 6-6-2010 and the complainant’s son was on the school rolls till 12-6-2010.  There after he took Transfer certificate of his son stating that his ill health as a ground and also stated that the O.P1, in fact told the complainant that his son could take leave till he recovers and then start coming to school as such the school did not asked the complainant’s son to leave / discontinue. 

6.                The O.P.2 further stated, as per rules of the school a parent is required to pay full fee even if he withdraws his ward during currency of an academic session and undertaking has given by him in the said regard at the time of admitting his son.  Therefore, after giving the undertaking and having agreed to the terms and conditions and he cannot at this point in time cry foul about the reimbursement of fee and also stated that on the request of the complainant the school had returned the caution money deposit of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant on 21-6-2010 vide cheque No. 203676 and further allegation of incurring Rs. 30,000/- towards travel by complainant put to strict proof of the same.  Therefore, the present complaint is liable to dismiss with exemplary costs. 

7.                To prove the case the complainant filed an affidavit along with documents and got marked Ex. A1 & A2 and on behalf of the Opposite parties filed written arguments and filed counter along with documents and got marked as Ex. B1 & B2.

8.                On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

1. Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him?  
2. Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
3. To what relief?

9.                Point Nos. 1 & 2.   The contention of the complainant is that he joined his son namely P.H. Praveen Kumar Reddy, previously studied 6^th and 7^th class in O.P.1 school.  The complainant for his son to get admission in 8^th class and he paid a sum of                      Rs. 32,500/- through challan, dt. 28-8-2012.  After wards due to ill health his son namely P.H. Praveen Kumar Reddy, (Amended as per orders in I.A. No. 7/2014, dt.                   2-4-2014) not joined in 8^th class at O.P.1 school and not taken any services of O.P.1 school.  Therefore, he demanded O.P.1 for return of amount which was paid to the O.P.1 and he got issued notice to the O.P.1, dt. 16-2-2012, but there is no response. 

10.              Further contention of the complainant is that the complainant and his son wondered around the O.P.1 with a request for repayment of the amount of Rs. 32,500/- since month of November 2010.  He and his son many times coming from their village to Kadapa for repayment of amount including school fee for which he and his son incurred expenditure to a tune of Rs. 30,000/-

11.              The contention of the O.P.1 complainant admitted his son namely P.H. Praveen Kumar was on 20-2-2008 in 6^th class in the school as a boarder.    After completion of 7^th class in 2010 he was promoted to 8^th class there after he paid                           fee by way of challan, Rs. 32,500/- on 25-5-2010 towards 1^st installment of the school for the academic year 2010-11.  The said amount was paid towards admission fee for 8^th class is not true.  The school reopened on 6-6-2010 and the complainant’s son was on the school rolls till 12-6-2010.  There after he took Transfer certificate of his son stating that his ill health as a ground and also stated that the school, in fact told the complainant that his son could take leave till he recovers and then start coming to school as such the school did not asked the complainant son to leave / discontinue. 

12.              Further contention of the O.P.1, as per rules of the school a parent is required to pay full fee even if he withdraws his ward during currency of an academic session and undertaking has given by him, in the said regard at the time of admitting his son.  Therefore, after giving the undertaking and having agreed to the terms and conditions and he cannot at this point in time cry foul about the reimbursement of fee and also stated that on the request of the complainant the school had returned the caution deposit of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant on 21-6-2010 vide cheque No. 203676 and further allegation of incurring Rs. 30,000/- towards travel by complainant put to strict proof.

13.              We have gone through the contents of the both sides, affidavit, written arguments and documents.    As seen above averments the complainant admitted his son namely P.H. Pavan Kumar Reddy in 8^th class.  As seen Ex. A2 it reveals that he paid an amount of Rs. 32,500/- towards school fee of first installment through challan in account of opposite party bearing No. 10422373322.   After that, due to ill-health his son not joined O.P.1 school in 8^th class and not taken any services and he requested so many times orally for return of amount paid towards admission / school fee of his son.  But there is no response from opposite parties and the complaint got issued notice to the O.P.1 dt. 16-2-2012.  

14.              On the other hand the contention of O.P.1 and also admitted that the complainant’s son P.H. Praveen Kumar Reddy, was joined 8^th class on 20-2-2008 in the school as a boarder.  After completion of 7^th class in 2010 he was promoted to 8^th class.  Thereafter the complainant paid Rs. 32,500/- on 25-5-2010 towards first installment of school fee for the academic year 2010-11. 

16.              Further contention of the O.P’s the complainant took Transfer certificate of his son ill-health as a ground.   The school in fact told the complainant that his son to take leave till he recovers and then start coming to school.  As per the rules of the school a parent is required to pay full fee even if he withdraws his ward during currency of an academic year also an undertaking has been given by him in the said regard at the time of admitting his son.  Therefore, after giving undertaking and having agreed to the terms and conditions the complainant cannot at this point in time cry foul about the reimbursement of the fee.    

17.              The learned counsel of the complainant filed a decision of I (2004) CPJ 183 Hon’ble GSCDRC, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. 519/2003, dt. 15-9-2013 Trustee, Shree Swaminarayan Institute of Technology Vs. Pravinaben J. Upadhyaya.  In the same case referred by the Hon’ble President in appeal No. 114/2003 between Jagrut Nagrik and Jayesh C. Vipradas Vs. The Vice Chancellor and The Registrar, Sardar Patel University, decided on                           01-9-2003, There, we had observed educational institutions are not commercial institutions and they do not thrive upon profiteering from the fees collected from the students.  Retention of the amount of fees and other charges collected by the opponent in the aforesaid circumstances would clearly amount to deficiency in service.  We also had an occasion to observe that even if it is treated as a case of breach of contract, although it is not so stricto sensu, the opponent would not be entitled to retain the amount as it would amount to penalty and not reasonable compensation.  Hence, the contention of the opposite parties not tenable. 

18.            The contention of the complainant is that he incurred expenditure Rs. 30,000/-.  In this regard to prove he did not filed any documentary evidence. 

19.            As has above decision and discussion the complainant proved deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

20.              Point No. 3   In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 32,500/- admission fees, including school fee paid by the complainant, pay Rs. 10,000/- towards expenditure and cost of the complaint to the complainant, within 45 days of date of receipt of orders. 

                   Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 5^th July, 2014

MEMBER                                                                                    PRESIDENT FAC

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant    NIL                                                        For Respondents :     NIL      

Exhibits marked for Complainant: -

Ex. A1                   Legal notice issued by the counsel of the complainant, dt. 16-2-2012. 

Ex. A2                   Fees receipt of Rs. 32,500/- paid by the complainant to the respondent

 school.

Exhibits marked for Opposite parties : -            

Ex. B1         P/c of information for admission broacher issued by the respondent school i.e. the Hyderabad Public School, Kadapa,  A.P.

Ex. B2        P/c of student data sheet for admission to class 2005-06 issued by the respondent school i.e. the Hyderabad Public School, Kadapa,  A.P

MEMBER                                                                                     PRESIDENT FAC

Copy to :-

1. Sri K. Krishna Murthy, Advocate for complainant.
2. The Principal, Hyderabad Public School, Opp. To RIMS Hospital,

Kadapa.

1. The Chairman, Hyderabad Public School, Sardarpetal Road,

 Beghampet, Hyderabad

B.V.P.