O R D E R

(5^th March 2011)

HON'BLE MEMBER : SMT. JYOTI IYER

1. This complaint has been filed against the Opponent alleging the Opponent School for being deficient in its services by not providing infrastructure, faculty and other services as mentioned in its prospectus and for not refunding the fees paid by the Complainant despite cancellation of her son's admission within 3 days, thereby being guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practises. Hence the Complainant has sought that the Opponent school and its principal be held guilty of deficiency in services are well also for unfair trade practices and further for directions to refund the school fees etc., alongwith interest compensation for mental agony to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- sum totaling to Rs.46,885/-.

2. Pursuant to the issuance of notice the Principal of Opponent school vide her letter dtd.30/07/2010 filed her reply contesting and denying the allegations made against her and the Opponent School. In support of her contentions the principal of the Opponent school has placed on record the following documents-

i) Qualification Certificates of Class III teacher Manju Krishna A.

ii) Copy of NOC issued by Government of Maharashtra regarding affiliation to C.B.S.E board.

iii) Copy of revived syllabus of CCE.

iv) Copy of syllabus for std. III for computer education.

v) Copy of admission form and degree certificate of Complainant.

vi) Copy of photographs alongwith library books.

And prayed for dismissal of the complaint alongwith compensatory cost contending that the allegations made by the Complainant in her complaint are baseless, false, fabricated and vexatious.

... 2 ... (Com. No. 246/2010)

3. We have perused the record, heard the Complainant in person, the Ld., Advocate representing the Opponent school, so also the principal of the Opponent school. It is the contention of the Complainant that the teachers in the Opponent School are not qualified to impart education which according to the Opponent school as contended in its prospectus that the Opponent School has failed to offer quality education of C.B.S.E and infrastructure etc., as required by schools offering C.B.S.E education. On careful perusal of the prospectus of the Opponent school the relevant portions of which are reproduced hereunder to ascertain the allegations made by the Complainant against the Opponent School:-

LETTER FROM THE PRINCIPAL'S DESK......

“OUR DEDICATED TEAM OF TEACHERS, WHO ARE TRAINED IN THE HIGHEST STANDARD OF TEACHING ........

BACKGROUND OF THE TRUST

The Trust “Santheo Educational Trust” was incorporated under B.P.T Public Trust Act 1950, bearing Reg. No. E/3305/Thane – dt. 16^th June 2003

Issued by Registrar Public Trust, District _ Thane with the main object to open and run Education Institutions like Schools, Colleges and Hostels, Rendering Social Services, etc.,

The Trust is a voluntary non profit social welfare organization comprising of founder members. The affairs of the trust are managed by an Executive Council comprising of the President and other Trustees. The Sources of funds are donations form members of the Trust, public, non interest bearing loans from members of the Trust and their families, members fees, fee/collection etc.

NEW SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE

A School equipped with state of art infrastructure and teaching systems.

• A beautiful children's Park - Vast play fields.

• Fully equipped computer laboratory -A mini Auditorium

• Laboratories for mathematics, Gen:Science and Physics, Chemistry and Biology

• Library reading room -Mess to serve hygienic and nutritious food

• Fire safety measures - In house 100 percent power backup.

• Clean and separate toilets for boys and girls as per the age groups of different sections.

... 3 ... (Com. No. 246/2010)

CURRICULUM, SYLLABUS AND ACTIVITIES

Infant Jesus School offers quality education of Central Board of Secondary Education (C.B.S.E) which is vitally important in today's highly competitive world.

PURPOSE AND POLICY

The new school will strictly follow the rules and regulations of C.B.S.E board.

WITHDRAWALS

• Withdrawals is before the month of August then three months school fees should be paid.

• Withdrawals is after the month of August then no fees will be refunded.

• Transfer certificates is issued only after the payment of the dues.

   

4. The Complainant states that when she telephonically spoke to the principal of the Opponent School she was told that the Class teacher of Standard - III Mrs. Manju Nair is PGT Science and she will have to adjust. The contention of the principal in her letter dtd. 30^th July 2010 addressed to this Forum. The relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced hereunder. “In the letter the Complainant has mentioned about a teacher called Mrs. Manju Nair. In our school we have not employed a teacher by this name. Class III teacher Mrs. Manjukrishna Hari is well qualified to teach in the High School level. She is a B.Ed graduate with a first class from the university of kerala. (please refer to the qualification certificates attached). The Complainant's argument that the class teacher is not qualified to teach is false. Her knowledge in the subjects and English language is outstanding.

The question which arises is that what are qualifications prescribed for teachers imparting C.B.S.E Education to students of standard II?

In the instant case in hand from the perusal of the certificates it is reflected that the teacher Mrs. Manju Krishna A has passed her B.Ed degree from the University of Kerala in the year Nov. 1997 and has secured 1^st class with optional subject Physical Science. From the marksheet it is reflected that it is of the Final Year B.Sc Degree Examination of April 1996 issued by University of Calicut. It is pertinent to note that neither the Complainant nor Opponent School has produced the Rules and Regulations of the C.B.S.E curriculum. The Complainant contends that she feels that the degree certificate of Calicut University appears to be of non recognized University. In our view since no rules and regulations are produced before us governing the C.B.S.E nor the Complainant has brought any evidence regarding non recognization of the

... 4 ... (Com. No. 246/2010)

university of Calicut hence we are unable to uphold the contention of the Complainant regarding non qualification of the concerned teacher. However we are of the well considered view that as per the requirement of the laws manditorily teachers who are imparting education to the students should possess Degrees from recognized Govt., Institution so also a B.Ed degree etc as per the rules governing the syllabus and curriculum as per the courses of education offered. It is pertinent to note that the instant case in hand the Opponent school is imparting C.B.S.E education which has more vast syllabus as compared to SSC and the standard is also said to be higher hence even the qualification required should be of a higher level. Further in our opinion undoubtedly if a teacher teaching English has specialization in English literature it would definitely be better however since the medium of language of education is English any teacher having the requisite qualification for teaching can teach any general subject as there is no express bar prescribed and further the pronunciations will defer from caste to caste and cannot be given undue weightage as language is just a means of communication until and unless it is alien. It is pertinent to note that under the above reproduced column of the prospectus of the Opponent School “PURPOSE AND POLICY” it is stated categorically the new school will strictly follow the rules and regulations of the C.B.S.E Board. It is also pertinent to note that the Opponent School Principal has in her letter 30^th July 2010 addressed to the this Forum has stated that the school project will be operational in 2012 and the building in which we run the school at present is temporary and also stated that the Government of Maharashtra has given an NOC in 2008 June NOC no.65/2008 after inspecting the Opponent School building and the land purchased by it. Undoubtedly the Opponent school appears to be imparting education to the students of C.B.S.E board but the question is whether it is at par with the standard and rules, regulations prescribed by the bye-laws of the C.B.S.E Board however we are unable to comment on the same as no rules and regulations governing the C.B.S.E board are produced before us. It is pertinent to note that the NOC has been given by the Government of Maharashtra to the Opponent School for C.B.S.E affiliation, but by no means a sure short affiliation assurance has been given to the Opponent school on the contrary from the NOC on record it is clear that subject to the trust submitting the following information as reflected in the letter dtd.30/06/2008 the Government will grant affiliation. It is nowhere reflected from the prospectus that the Opponent school has affiliation with the

... 5 ... (Com. No. 246/2010)

C.B.S.E board keeping in our mind that the Complainant had gone through the prospectus prior to admitting her son in the opponent school we feel there is no merit in the contention of the Complainant that misrepresentations regarding the Opponent school being affiliated to C.B.S.E board. In our minds a thought occurs that in case of non grant of affiliation to the C.B.S.E board to the Opponent school what would be the fate of the student, if the student opts out of the Opponent school and wants to join a school which offer C.B.S.E board education therefore the standard of education offered in the instant case should definitely be in par with the C.B.S.E board. Since the Opponent School has produced evidence on record regarding the same and no contrary evidence that being brought on record by the Complainant. We assume that the Opponent School is strictly complying with the rules and regulations of the CBSE Board. It is also pertinent to note that C.C.E i.e Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation is manditorily to be followed as per C.B.S.E board. So also infrastructure and other facilities are to be provided as per their guidelines. From the overall reading it appears that the Opponent School is following the rules and regulations prescribed by the C.B.S.E board whether strictly the said Rules etc are followed. As they themselves state that the new school will strictly follow the rules and regulations of C.B.S.E board giving an impression that presently the rules are not followed strictly. In the instant case admittedly the Complainant son has been admitted in the Opponent school by paying school fees of Rs.16,000/- as per receipt dated 07/06/2010 issued by the Opponent School, Rs.800/- are paid towards uniform as reflected in the receipt issued by the Opponent school dtd.10/06/2010 and receipt of Rs.2,530/- dtd 07/06/2010 towards books, bags etc issued by the Opponent School, which are annexed to the complaint. There is no dispute that the Complainant's son attended the Opponent school for only 3 days. On perusal of the above receipt no bifurcation of the amount of Rs.16,000/- is given neither the period for which it is charged is mentioned. This by itself is an unfair trade practice by the Opponent school. It is pertinent tho note the Opponent School principal stand in her letter dtd 30/07/2010 to this Forum has under the column about refund of fees paid she has stated that “while taking admission we explain to all parents that once the fees paid is remitted in the school account it is not refundable in any circumstances. After excepting the terms and conditions of the school the Complainant has signed the admission form, the Complainant has decided to take the admission without any compulsion. Uniform, books,

... 6 ... (Com. No. 246/2010)

school bag purchased by the Complainant and other things are in her custody. The annual fee charged by the Opponent school stated is as under-

Tution fees Rs. 500 X 12 months = 6,000/-

Term fees Rs. 1000 X 2 terms = 2,000/-

Rs. 8,000/- is the total fees we charge for regular students. For new admission we charge twice the regular fees as we take admission fee and miscellaneous fee extra. We have no monthly fee or any other charges for children during the academic year.

5. The Opponent school's principal alongwith their list of documents has produced the receipt no. 57 dt. 16/06/2010 issued by the Opponent School i.e Infant Jesus International School Ambernath certifying that Master Dhruv Sushil Shinde studying in std. 3^rd his annual fees for the academic year 2010-2011 are a under:-

A

1.

2. Admission fees - Rs . 5,000/-

3. Tuition fees (June 2010 to May 2011) - Rs. 6000/-

4. Term fees 1^st and 2^nd term - Rs. 2,000/-

5. Miscellaneous fees – - Rs. 3,000/-

total annual fees - Rs. 16,000/-

B

Books - Rs. 2,150/-

School Uniform 2 set - Rs. 800/-

School bag - Rs. 430/-

Identity Card - Rs. 50/-

School calendar - Rs. 50/-

Total - Rs. 3,480/-

Total amount - Rs.19,480/-

It is pertinent to note that the Opponent school has stated that the Complainant has falsely alleged the Opponent school for deficiency in its faculty, infrastructure etc., It is the contention of the Opponent school that the Complainant has deliberately not submitted the original Transfer certificate of the earlier school in which her son was studying and contended that she has secured admission in some other school however there is no documentary evidence brought on record by the Opponent School regarding the same.

... 7 ... (Com. No. 246/2010)

Further in our opinion since the Complainant has decided to cancel her son's admission from the said school within 3 days from the commencement of his classes furnishing of original transfer certificate would be of no consequence It is also pertinent to note that it is not the case of opponent school that the seat reserved for the Complainant's son remained vacant. Bearing in mind the overall facts an circumstances of the case and on appreciation of evidence on record we are on the view that as such the Opponent school cannot be held for deficiency in its services. However retaining the entire fee paid by the Complainant for the whole year and further for charging the fees in advance for the whole year is by itself a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice adopted by the Opponent school. It is pertinent to note that Opponent school in its prospectus under the column withdrawals which is already reproduced above has in clear and categorically terms stated that if the withdrawal is before August then three months fees is to be paid. The Opponent school appears to have flouted its own rule which also in our view is arbitrary as in our opinion tuition fees can be charged only month-wise and in the present case since admittedly the complainant's son has attended only three days of school. Tuition fees on the entire year cannot be charged for services which are not rendered. Hence in our opinion the Opponent school is not justified in retaining the entire fees The view taken by us is supported by the following judgement of the Hon'ble State Commission Delhi cited in

2008 CTJ 300 (CP) (SCDRC)

Amity Business School and another

V/s.

Puneet Jain

Appeal no.247 of 2006

The relevant observation of the Hon'ble State Commission, Delhi in the above matter are reproduced hereunder:-

6. As regards the non refund of the fees and charging lumpsum fees of the course we have an identical cases taken a view that more service provider much less the educational institute, university, coaching centers can be allowed to forfeit the fees in case it has neither provided any service nor has the student availed the service particularly when the student withdraws from the admission before the commencement of the session. There cannot be worst and unscrupulous kind of practice to become unjustly rich without having provided any service and usurping consideration. Therefore, we have also held that any such term agreed by the parties that fees once paid shall

... 8 ... (Com. No. 246/2010)

not be refunded is unconscionable and void-ab-initio for the simple reason that service provider has to provide service if it has received consideration thereof.

7. We have also deprecated the practice of taking the lump sum fees for the whole duration of the course say one year or two year or even in some case three years, as unfair trade practice because no service provider can charge consideration in advance for the service which it has yet to provide. By taking lump sum fee they bind the students for all time to come to get the coaching from the said institute even it he finds the coaching substandard at the cost of his career prospects.

8........... By not refunding the fees of a student who has withdrawn from the Institute and then by filing it up by another candidate, they become doubly rich. Thus such types of institutes have become commercial shops. They cannot be worst and unfair trade practice and that to in the profession of education which is a pious profession.

6. In our view due to the aforesaid above discussion we feel that the Opponent School can be held for unfair trade practice in clear and categorical terms. Any which ways since the Complainant's son in the instant case did go to school for three days forfeiting a reasonable sum like admission fees, one months tuition fees and fees paid towards school books, uniform, identity card, etc. sum totaling Rs.8,980/- would be just in the present case but not the entire fees as done by the Opponent School. Further there is not an iota of doubt in our minds that the Complainant must have gone through immense mental agony and torture due to the conduct of the Opponent school for illegally and arbitrarily retaining the entire fees so also that the complainant was so much so constrained that she had to knock the doors of the Forum for redressal of her grievances for which she needs to be compensated to achieve the ends of justice. Hence the following order.

ORDER

1.Complaint no. 246/2010 is allowed in the following terms.

2.The principal of the Opponent School is directed to refund the tuition fees of Rs. 5,500/-(Rs, Five Thousand Five Hundred Only) to the Complainant after deducting Rs. 500/-(Rs. Five Hundred Only) towards tuition fees of one month, Rs. 2,000/-(Rs. Two Thousand Only) and Rs. 3,000/-(Rs. Three Thousand Only) towards Terms fees

 

... 9 ... (Com. No. 246/2010)

(I and II Term) and Miscellaneous fees sum totaling to Rs. 10,500/-(Ten Thousand Five Hundred Only) alongwith interest @ 12% p.a from the 19/06/2010 until realisation.

4.The principal of the Opponent School is directed to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rs. Five Thousand Only) towards compensation for mental agony and torture.

5.The principal of the Opponent School is directed to pay Rs.2,000/-(Rs. Two Thousand Only) towards cost of litigation.

6. The principal of the Opponent School is directed to comply with the above order within 4 weeks from the date of this order.

7. Copies of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

THANE

DATE : 05/03/2011

(JYOTI IYER) (M.G.RAHATGAONKAR)

MEMBER PRESIDENT