In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.  408 / 2009.

1)           Sriman Debapriya Chandra and

2)           Sri Tapan Kr. Chandra of

77/1C, R.K. Chatterjee Road, Kasba, Kolkata-42.           --------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)           The Principal, National High School (Boys),

164, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-700029.                     ----------- Opposite Party

Present :  Sri S. K. Majumdar, President.

                        Dr. A. B. Chakraborty, Member

Order No.  1 5   Dated  1 1 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 1 .

It is the specific allegation of the complainant of Sri Tapan Kumar Chandra the father of Sri Debapriya Chandra that Debapriya complying with all formalities deposited a total sum of Rs. 6080/- (Rs. 3080 + Rs. 3000) for his admission in the National High School (Boys & Girls) and out of it Rs. 1675/- was refundable as evident from Bill no./HS190 dated 06/06/2009 and receipt no. 2809 dated 06/06/2009. As Debapriya did not like to continue his study in the National High School which his father fully described in his letter dated 22/06/2009, he is entitled to get refundable money of Rs. 1675/- and he should also be given back money of Rs. 3000/- and the o.p. should pay him Rs. 6080/- and compensation of Rs. 25000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 1000/-.

            O.p. The Principal, National High School (Boys & Girls) has contested this case by filing a written version on 04/10/2010 wherein he has inter-alia stated that as the School recognized by West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education and being guided by its rule, the admission in the school does not come within the purview of C.P. Act, 1986.

On 06/06/2009 Debapriya was admitted on payment of admission fee of Rs. 3080/-. He also paid Rs. 3000/- towards building fund as donation which according to the terms and condition of the school prospectus (Annex.-‘A’) is not refundable. The complainant’s Lawyer in his notice dated 16/10/2009 demanded refund of money of Rs. 4675/- instead of Rs. 6080/-. The complainant has suppressed all the material facts and so the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Decision with reason

            The only point need be decided is that whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 6080/- and compensation of Rs. 25000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 1000/-. In the letter of the complainant Sri Tapan Kr. Chandra dated 22/06/2006 has stated that as his unwilling to continue his study at the National High School he requested the Principal to refund the money of Rs. 6080/- out of which Rs. 3000/- as building fee. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the o.p. that as the School is governed by the rules and regulations of the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education the admission of the School does not come under the definition of C.P. Act, 1986. This is erroneous conception because there is question of payment of consideration money for getting admission in a School for getting service of education and if there is any deficiency or unfair trade practice involved in that event it comes under the purview of C.P. Act, 1986.

            We have perused the letter of the complainant’s lawyer dated 16/07/2009 wherein he has categorically requested the Principal to refund Rs. 6080/- or at least Rs. 4675/-. It also appears from page no. 6 dated 01/08/2009, a letter of the lawyer of the o.p. where in he has categorically stated that the complainant donated a sum of Rs. 3000/- towards the construction of new building at the time of admission and according to him the donation-money cannot be refunded as laid down in the prospectus. And in the provisions of withdrawal it is stated in the prospectus Annexure-‘A’ page-3 – “However, no Refund will be made in case of withdrawal or cancellation of admission of the word”. The legal meaning donation is a gratuitous payment / gift by the donor to donee for the welfare or benefit of the donee and the donor by his / her will cannot get it back because such payment is gratuitously made. In the instant case it is for the purpose building construction.

            We have perused the evidence of the complainant filed on 20/04/2010 wherein he has categorically stated which is also reflected in his petition of complaint that the money given by him should be refunded to him as his son does not like to continue his study in the National High School. It appears from the reply of the complainant against the questionnaire of the o.p. that on the advice of the Principal he visited the office of the School and he has stated that he was not supplied with the prospectus of the School. We cannot accept his version because he has annexed the prospectus with the petition of complaint which is marked Annex.-‘A’. In reply no. 7 he has said that School cannot charge any donation from any students but it is not also correct position because School by giving printed receipt takes the donation for many purposes e.g. as for building development, welfare fare of the School etc.; may be that it is not desirable.

            We have also perused the evidence of the o.p. wherein he has categorically admitted the payment of admission fee and building fee by the complainant at the time of admission of his ward.

            We have also perused the Brief Note of Argument of the parties. Against the point of maintainability of the case one decision is referred reported in (2010) 8 Supreme Court cases is not applicable in the present case because even in spite of repeated instructions of the Board, the Headmaster of the School failed to submit requisite documents with regard to supply exact date of birth of the student and in the decision referred to herein also shows that the District Forum was directed to decide the question by affording opportunity to the Respondent no.1 to file the objection on the point of limitation. In view of the position the background / fact of the case is not befitting to our present case. We have also perused the other decisions filed by the o.p.

            It is no where stated nor it is the case of the complainant that for non-refund of money his son suffered from any harassment or mental agony, nor even he has to incur loss of any academic year. It is out of his own volition, choice and desire he got transferred from the National High School to another School. In view of the position there is no deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. His contention of get refund of money from the o.p. is contrary to the provision laid down in the School prospectus and even if it is accepted that he did not go through the terms and conditions it is his ignorance, fault and delinquency for which the o.p. can neither be blamed adversely nor penalized. 

            Hence

                        Order

            the case is dismissed on contest. Considering the circumstances no order is passed as to cost.

Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.

        _____sd-_______                                              ______sd-________

          MEMBER                                                         PRESIDENT