Complaint filed on: 24-11-2011
Disposed on: 24-05-2012
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
C.C.No.2126/2011
DATED THIS THE 24th MAY 2012
PRESENT
SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT
SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER
Complainant: -
Antony Vijay
# 122, Christ Castle,
Christ Layout, Kaverinagar,
Voddarpalya, Horamavu post,
Bangalore - 43
V/s
Opposite party: -
The Principal,
St. George High School,
Anagalpura village,
Dodda Gubbi P.O.,
Bangalore - 49
ORDER
SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the OP, praying to pass an order, directing the OP to issue Transfer Certificate of his son, and refund the initial amount of Rs.15,000=00 and suitable compensation.
2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under.
The son of the complainant by name David Benedict.D.A, was enrolled in St. George High School for the academic year 2011-2012 in standard 9th with hostel facility, and during the admission, they were told that, the OP would take care of the child and food at the hostel and they would provide with weekly twice non-veg. and along with breakfast they would give milk, egg and also they would conduct regular tuition after the school in the hostel, the OP gave a list of items which was to be given to the child from them. So, the complainant paid an initial amount of Rs.15,000=00 against receipt no.11546 dt.30-5-2011, and sent him to the hostel on 1-6-2011, and on 10-6-2011 the complainant took the child to home as second Saturday was leave and left him in the school on 13-6-2011. That on 14-6-2011 the complainant received a call from the school, and the principal wanted to meet the complainant urgently, so the complainant rushed to the school and saw that David was made to sit in the corridor of the office and he was not allowed to write his exams. So the complainant went and spoke to the principal and came to know that David had fought with some of the hostel students and the warden by name Mr.Fabin had put the complainant’s son in a dark room and had locked him and the child was scared when they spoke to him. So, the complainant enquired about this, and the principal stated that, they will not be able to take care of the child of the complainant in the hostel, so they asked to take the son of the complainant to home along with his belongings, so they brought David to home on 14-6-2011. After that on 16-6-2011, the complainant and his family again spoken to the principal and he asked to send the child to the school by school bus, so the complainant was sending his son by school bus. Again on 14-9-2011, the complainant received a call from the office, so the complainant and his family went to the school and spoke to the principal, the complainant was informed that David was not attentive in the class, so he suggested them to have a separate teacher for him at the school and pay extra along with the school fees or take him home and they will not admit him in the school. So with no option left, the complainant agreed to have a teacher for his son David and came home, on 16-9-2011 the complainant received a letter from the principal stating that a special teacher was appointed for his son and she will be taking class from 19-9-2011 and they were asked to pay the initial amount salary of the teacher in advance of Rs.7,000=00 immediately, so the complainant spoke to the principal and told that, they are facing some financial problems and they will arrange for the amount at the earliest. Again on 25-9-2011, the complainant received another letter from the principal stating to pay the amount to the teacher otherwise teacher will not be available, so the complainant called on the principal and requested to give some more time and sent the child of the complainant to school but the child of the complainant was sent out of the class room, so he was made to sit in the school bus till evening and on the next day, the complainant went to the school and enquired about this and the principal told unless the amount is paid do not send the child of the complainant to the school. So the complainant and his family requested him saying that the teacher had started the class only from 19-9-2011 and they will pay the amount on 30-9-2011, but the principal did not give ears to request of the complainant, he got up from the office and went to the class room, and made the complainant to wait till he finished his class, but it took a long time, the complainant and his family went to the class room and they were to go out. After the incident, one of the complainant’s uncle daughter committed suicide at Kerala, so they went there to get her body for burial in Bangalore. So they could not go for further discussion, and on 20-10-2011, the complainant and his family went to the school and met the principal and told the problems, they faced and asked the principal to admit the child David to the school, but he did not listen. So they asked to give the Transfer certificate (TC) of his son, but the OP is demanding to pay excess amount and denied to give the Transfer Certificate (TC) unless, the complainant pay the amount demanded by the OP. So the present complaint is filed praying to pass an order, directing the OP to issue Transfer Certificate (TC) of the complainant son, and refund the initial amount of Rs.15,000=00 and also suitable compensation, as the OP has not only spoiled the child academic year, but also put him under mental and physical strains.
3. After service of notice, the OP has appeared through his counsel and filed objection, contending inter-alia as under:
The complaint of the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint is only a rouse to escape from the liability of paying Rs.14,000=00 due from the complainant to Mrs.Swathy, the tuition teacher arranged and appointed by the OP to take care of the special child of the complainant as requested by the complainant. The complainant agreed to pay a monthly tuition fee of Rs.7,000=00 to of Mrs.Swathy for taking special tuition for all subjects and care for master David Benedict, the son of the complainant, the complainant has not paid the tuition fee to the teacher specially appointed to take care of this special child. The child of the complainant is a special child who required special care as his character were not formed properly. The OP is a Christin Institution, which always give at most importance to the mission of imparting education to all, especially the less privileged and also the under privileged in the society. It is true that the OP has admitted Master David Benedict.D.A, to the OP school only on the special request made by the complainant and is knowing fully that the complainant’s son a special child. So on account of it the child was admitted in the school in the academic year. It can be noted that even from the admissions of the complainant son that his child is trouble some child and needed special care and accordingly special tuition and care was arranged for, for which the complainant agreed to compensate, but the complainant never paid for the special tuition arranged for. The admission in the complaint that the child fought with a student is true and the same is well within the knowledge of the complainant, Master David Benedict.D.A, fought with Anutha, a student of 9th standard and as a result she had to undergo a minor surgery. The complainant did not give the tuition fee to the teacher specially appointed at the request of the complainant and still he is in due of the amount to be payable to the teacher. The allegation that the child was put in a dark room is imaginary and so it is denied. The fact is that the child was an utter troublesome boy even in the class and also in the hostel. In consultation with the principal, the warden gave him a single room to save other hostel inmates, the action was done when Master David Benedict.D.A, was trying to subject other students for homosexuality. The master David Benedict.D.A, has not been terminated from the role as on this day, but he remained continuously absent from 10-10-2012. Neither the student nor the parents have demanded for the transfer certificate as on today and the management has never denied the transfer certificate and demanded any extra money. The management is only happy to issue TC against the payment of special tuition fee arrears owing to Mrs.Swathy Mary. The order of refund for the initial fee of Rs.15,000=00 does not arise at all as the student has availed all facility extended to him and also on the aground that the student himself has stopped coming to the school. The complaint filed is frivolous and with dishonest intention this complaint came to be filed, the forum may kindly be pleased to order the complainant to pay the agreed amount of tuition fee to Mrs.Swathy Mary, so it is prayed to dismiss the complaint of the complainant with exemplary damages.
4. So from the averments of the complaint of the complainant and objection of the OPs, the following points arise for our consideration.
1. Whether the complainant proves that, the OP has not only spoiled the academic year of his son but also put his son under mental and physical strains and there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP?
2. If point no.1 is answered in the affirmative, whether the complainant is entitled to claim the relief as prayed for?
3. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are;
Point no.1: In the Affirmative
Point no.2: In the Affirmative
Point no.3: For the following order
REASONS
6. So as to prove the case, the complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence, and produced 7 documents. On the other hand, one Rev. Fr. Paulose, who being the Principal of the OP school has filed his affidavit, and produced 6 documents. We have heard the arguments of both sides. We have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both parties meticulously.
7. One Antony Vijay, who being the complainant has stated in his affidavit filed by way of evidence that, his son David Benedict.D.A, was enrolled in St. George High School for the Academic year 2011-2012 in 9th standard with hostel facility and at the time of admission, they were told that they would take care of the child and the food at the hostel would be good with weekly twice non vegetarian and along with breakfast, and give milk and egg and also they would conduct regular tuition after the school in the hostel and they gave them a list of items which is to be given to the children. So they paid Rs.15,000=00 under receipt no.11546 dated 30-5-2011 and sent his son to the hostel on 1-6-2011, and on 10-6-2011 they took the child to home as second Saturday was leave and left him in the school, and on 14-6-2011 they received a call from the school and the principal wanted to meet him urgently so they rushed to the school and saw that his son David was made to sit in the corridor of the office and he was not allowed to his exams. So they went and spoke to the principal and came to know that his son David had fought with some of the hostel students and the warden Mr.Fabin had put him in a dark room and he was locked and he was scared when they spoke to him, so they enquired in this regard to the principal and they told that they will not be able to take care of the child in the school and in the hostel. So they asked to take their son to home along with his belongings. So they brought their son to home on 14-6-2011, and on 16-6-2011 they spoke to the principal and he asked to send their son to the school by school bus. So they started sending their son to school by bus. Again on 14-9-2011, they received a call from the office, so they went to the school and spoke to the principal he told that their son David was not attentive in the class, so he suggested to have a separate teacher for him at the school and pay extra along with the school fees or take him home and they will not admit him in the school. So with no option left, they agreed to have a teacher for their son and came home and on 16-9-2011 they received a letter from the principal stating that a special teacher was appointed for their son David and she will be taking class from 19-9-2011 and they were asked to pay initial amount of Rs.7,000=00 as salary to the teacher, and they told to the principal that they were facing some financial problem and they will arrange for the amount at the earliest. Again on 25-9-2011, they received another letter from the principal stating to pay the amount to the teacher otherwise she will not be available and they went and prayed time but on the next day their son was sent out of the class and made him to sit in the school bus till evening and on the next day they went to the school and enquired the principal and he told unless the amount is paid do not sent their son to the school, so they requested him saying that the teacher has started the class from 19-9-2011. so they will pay from 30-9-2011 but the principal did not give ear, he walked from the office and went to the class room, and the principal wanted to finish the class and took a long time, they went up to the class room, the principal asked them get out, After the incident one of their uncle’s daughter committed suicide at Kerala, so they went there to get her body for burial in Bangalore. So they would not go to the school for further discussion. On 20-10-2011 they went to the school and met the principal and spoke to him stating the problems they had faced and asked the principal to admit his son David to the school but he did not listen, so they asked him to give the TC of the child but they are demanding to pay excess amount and denied to give the TC, so he prayed to pass an order directing the school to issue the TC and refund the initial amount of Rs.15,000=00 and also suitable compensation, as the OP has spoiled the academic year of the complainant’s child and put him under the mental and physical strains in the interest of justice and equity.
8. On a careful reading of the averments of the complaint and evidence of the complainant as mentioned above, it is no doubt true that, the complainant who being the father of the child by name David Benedict has tendered his evidence in accordance with the complaint. Let us have a look at the relevant documents of the complainant one by one. The document no.1 is the copy of fees receipt issued by the OP dated 30-5-2011 in the name of the complainant’s son for Rs.15,000=00 for 9th standard and on left side of the receipt, it is mentioned hostel and cashier has signed on the receipt. The document no.2 is the slip of paper sent by the OP to the parent of the child David stating that, the total amount paid was Rs.15,000=00, and out of it, the initial amount was Rs.8,900=00 is at school, one month hostel fee was Rs.2,250=00, one month salary of the teacher appointed for child David was Rs.7,000=00, Bus fare for 4 months was of Rs.2,000=00, and Tuition fee of Rs.2,400=00, the total amount as Rs.22,550=00 and deducting Rs.15,000=00, the balance amount is Rs.7,550=00 which is still to be payable by parents of the child David, the said slip issued by OP does not bear date and signature of the principal. The Document no.3 is the copy of letter given by the principal to the complainant stating that, as per the discussion, they had appointed a teacher for special coaching of all the subjects, so requested to pay initial amount, the said chits bear the date as 16-9-2011. The document no.4 is another letter sent by the principal dated 25-1-2011 asking the parents to pay the balance amount as discussed, otherwise the teacher will not be available, so send the amount along with child. In both chits the amount Rs.7,000=00 per month is not written. The document no.5 is the copy of fees structure of OP for the year 2011-12 and two photos are produced by the complainant, wherein, the name of school is St. George High School and this school is from Nursery to 10th standard, 100% pass + 100% first class 2011, the said photos are in the form of advertisement to the general public. Diary of the school given to the complainant’s son is produced by the complainant, wherein, it is stated that, the child David has not done home work, and he was fined some time, and on 6-9-2011 in the diary it is stated, one Anantha has complained that, David has stolen Maths note book from his bag without his permission, and on 14-9-2011 the child was fined for not wearing the uniform.
9. At this stage, let us have a cursory glance at the oral evidence of OP. Rev. Fr. Paulose, who being the principal of the OP and he has stated in his evidence that, as admitted in the complaint, the complainant has agreed to pay a monthly tuition fee of Rs.7,000=00 to Mrs.Swathy for taking special tuition for all subjects and care for mater David Benedict, the son of the complainant, but the complainant has not paid the tuition fee to the teacher specially appointed to take care of his special child, the child of the complainant, Master Davit Benedict.D.A, is a special child who requires special care as his character were not formed properly. The school is a Christian Institution in which at most importance is given to the mission of imparting education to all, especially the less privileged and also the under privileged in the society. The OP has admitted Master David Benedict.D.A, to his school only on the special request made by the complainant and even from the date of admission the son of the complainant is trouble some child and needed special care and accordingly special tuition and care was arranged for, and for which the complainant agreed to compensate, but the complainant never paid for the special tuition. The child David fought with a student of 9th standard, due to that she had undergone a minor surgery. It is false to say that, the child was put in a dark room the child was an utter trouble some boy even in the class and also in the hostel. The warden in consultation with him gave him a single room to save other hostels inmates. The action was done when Master David Benedict.D.A, was trying to subject other students for homosexuality. Master David Benedict.D.A, has not been terminated from the role as on today, but he remained continuously absent from 10-10-2012. Neither the student nor the parents have demanded for the TC as on today and the management has never denied the TC and demanded any extra money. The order of refund for the initial fee of Rs.15,000=00 does not arise at all as the student has availed all facility and also on the ground that the student himself has stopped coming to the school. The complaint filed is frivolous, the forum made kindly be pleased to order, directing the complainant to pay agreed amount of tuition fee payable to Mrs.Swathy for the special tuition rendered to Master David. So, the complaint be dismissed with exemplary damages.
10. The OP has produced entrance test papers of the child David, which is produced at document no.1 of the OP’s list dated 26-3-2011, and on the said papers, there is a hand writing made with red ink, the OP has keep it in file, hostel accommodation and he is a special child and date mentioned as 8-4-2011, the entrance test of Maths was not attended properly by the child of the complainant and still then he was admitted to school and provided hostel accommodation as a special child. Document no.2 is the copy of letter given by the Swathi Mary dated 22-12-2011 to the OP stating that she took special care for David, she did not get tuition salary from David’s parents, so she requested OP to inform the father of David to provide her tuition salary how much agreed, and date of application is 22-12-2011, but the said letter of Swathi Mary is not clear on which date she stared her tuition and taking care of David and how many months she attended the tuition works and how much was the tuition salary etc. The said letter of Swathi Mary is ambiguous with regard to the particular period of tuition and exact amount of tuition fee. Further the said letter of Swathi Mary makes it clear that Swathi Marry started working in the OP institution only from the month of October and November 2011 and she was new comer to the school and she was entrusted with duty of special care of David by paying fee, but no letter of appointment as such is given to Swathi Mary by the OP entrusting the duty of taking special care of the child David. In the absence of issuing letter of appointment by OP in the name of Swathi Mary as a teacher by imposing tuition and also special care to the child of the complainant, the said letter of Swathi Mary dated 22-12-2011 does not inspire much confidence in us. Document no.3 is the letter of the warden dated 13-6-2012 addressed to the OP making complaint against David stating that, David stole CD’s of Mr.Max, Pen drive from Mr.Ligosh and also stole note books and other materials from the students, and often fights with other inmates and he is not interested in studies and he is in the hostel always and he is disturbing the hostellers and creates troubles and teasing inmates and disturbing them and above all he tried to impose homo sexuality in the hostel and after this, his behaviour totally changed and due to his continuous bad behaviour, he allotted a special independent room and evenafter this he has not found any changes in him, so requested to take action, by alleging letter of warden as mentioned above. It is no doubt true that, the warden of OP is made several allegations against the son of the complainant’s including imposing homosexuality in the hostel, but the said letter of warden is not clear, on what exact date, he did galata in the school and hostel, and on which date, he tried imposing homosexuality in the hostel, and the said letter of the OP is not supported by the letters or the complaints of Mr.Max and Mr.Ligosh and other students for having stolen their CDs, Pen drive and other articles as stated in the letter. Moreover, the incident of imposing homosexuality has not bee in writing by OP informed to the complainant, the movement he received the complaint from the warden. Having not produced any believable documentary evidence to prove the contents of the letter dated 13-6-2012, the forum cannot place total reliance on the letter of the hostel warden as gospel truth. Document no.4 is the complaint of one of the student by name Anantha stating that, on 9-9-2011 when he went to school, student David Benedict started scolding and assaulted him with a sharp object on his head and underwent minor surgery. But unfortunately the said letter of Anantha who being one of the student of OP does not bear the date. That apart in diary produced by the complainant, there is no reference made in any of the pages stating that Anantha was assaulted by the complainant’s son with sharp object on his head. The said letter of Anantha is not fortified either by diary produced by the complainant or by other convincing documentary evidence. The OP has produced copies of attendance register of students from June-11 to Feb.2012 and these copies of attendance go to reveal that the child of the complainant has attended the school from June-2011 to Sept.11 and from Oct-2011 to Feb.2012 the child of the complainant did not attend the school. The copies of progress report and marks car of child of the complainant’s are also produced, and these marks cards do disclose that the child of the complainant did not do exams well and did not attend 3rd unit test and 4th unit test and also final exam, and the performance of David for first and second unite test was very poor, as per the progress report.
11. So looking to the oral evidence of the OP and documents produced on behalf of the OP, one thing is manifest that, the child of the complainant by name David Benedict was admitted to the OP school as a special child. Instead of giving special care and attention to the complainant’s son who being the special child, the OP and his staff went on giving trouble under the guise of trouble some child and he is imposing homosexuality in the hostel etc. But it is required to be noted that too letter was issued to parents of the child David informing that the child David gives troubles to some students and fights with intimates of the hostel and also in the school and he stole articles of others and he is imposing homosexuality in the hostel. No plausible explanation is coming forth by OP for not issuing any letter in writing to the parents of the child in this regard. When the child of the complainant was admitted to hostel and school of the OP by collecting Rs.15,000=00 from the complainant, it is bounden duty of the OP to inform the parents immediately, if any mistake is done by the child of the complainant without intimating the complainant, the child of the complainant was confined in a room separately in the hostel and made him to suffer through out the night. Besides the OP has prevailed upon the complainant to pay tuition fee of Rs.7,000=00 immediately as he appointed Mrs.Swathy Mary as a teacher for giving special tuition and care of the child. In fact, the complainant had agreed for paying special tuition by the end of the month. But the OP did not listen to the request of the complainant and went on submitting letter to the complainant insisting to pay tuition salary immediately, when the complainant did not pay the amount as directed by the OP, the OP and his staff have created false story and began giving unbearable trouble to the child of the complainant branding him as imposing homosexuality in the hostel. The OP who being the Principal working in the school must be well aware that the children coming to school are totally innocent and humble always and they are equal to god, and the teacher working in the school must always treat the students with love and affection and must always try to improve and mend the students by their good behavior gesture and advice, and if some of the students in the school are adamant and unruly and make the students in the school comfortable and happy by improving them. But in the present case on hand, the OP was got admitted the complainant’s son David to the school and hostel in the month of June-2011 by collecting Rs.15,000=00 as a special child and from the date of inception of admission to the hostel and school, instead of handling the child of the complainant with love and affection the OP and his staff i.e. warden particularly began giving unbearable torture to the child by branding him as poor in the study and child is trouble shooter in the hostel and school, and is imposing homosexuality etc, and on account of the said problem the son of the complainant was confined in a separate room in the hostel through out the night without informing the complainant and started pestering the complainant to pay special tuition fee of Rs.7,000=00, when the said amount was not paid by the complainant as per the demand, the son of the complainant was not allowed to school and sent out the complainant from school premises, when the complainant went to school to make enquiry about his son. The said act of the OP and his staff is totally uncalled for unwarranted and inhuman in nature in civilized society.
12. The oral testimony of the OP in relation to attributing trouble shooter child and imposing homosexuality in the hostel as against the son of the complainant and non payment of special tuition fee of Rs.7,000=00 per month is not countenanced by believable documentary evidence. On the other hand, the oral testimony of the complainant i.e. his son is not treated well in the school and hostel, though he was admitted as a special child and he was subjected to mental, physical torture in the hostel and school and his one year career was spoiled stands corroborated by documentary evidence of the complainant and also some of documents of the OP namely letter of warden, progress card and marks card. Notwithstanding the fact that the complainant’s son is dull in study, he is some what erratic or rude in the hostel and school still then the way in which the complainant’s son was treated in the hostel and school by the OP is really shocking as the OP has failed to treat the child with human touch and due to negligence of the OP, one year education career of the complainant’s son has been spoiled. So the OP is liable to compensate the complainant as prayed in the complaint and he can not escape the liability throwing blame on the complainant and his child. So taking into consideration, the material evidence of the complainant and compare the same with oral and documentary evidence of the OP, we are of the considered opinion that, the material evidence of the complainant is more believable trust worthy and acted than the evidence of the OP. So, under the circumstance, in view of our discussions made hitherto, we are inclined to come to straight conclusion that, the complainant who comes to the forum seeking relief has proved with clear cogent and consistent material evidence that, the OP has spoiled one year academic year of his son, without any reasons and put his son under mental and physical torture and there is a total deficiency in the service on the part of the OP, and accordingly, we answer this point in a affirmative.
13. In view of our affirmative findings on point no.1, the complainant is entitled to take back the Transfer Certificate (TC) from the OP and also entitled for refund of Rs.15,000=00 from the OP, and further, the complainant is entitled to Rs.5,000=00 and Rs.2,000=00 towards compensation and cost. The OP is directed to issue TC of Child David Benedict.D.A, to the complainant immediately without demanding arrears of tuition fee and other charges. The OP is directed to refund Rs.15,000=00 to the complainant with 8% interest per annum on the said amount from the date of respective payment within 15 days from the date of the order, failing which, the OP shall pay the said amount of Rs.15,000=00 to the complainant with 10% interest per annum from the date of the order to till the date of realization, and accordingly, we answer this point in a affirmative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
The complaint of the complainant is allowed. The OP is directed to issue Transfer Certificate (TC) of child David Benedic.D.A, to the complainant who being the father, immediately without demanding arrears of special tuition fee or any other charges.
The OP is further directed to refund Rs.15,000=00 to the complainant with interest at 8% per annum on the said amount from date of respective payment within 15 days from the date of this order. Failing which, the OP shall pay the said amount to the complainant with interest 10% per annum on the said amount from the date of the order to till the date of realization.
The complainant is entitled to Rs.5,000=00 and Rs.2,000=00 towards compensation and cost of the litigation respectively.
The OP shall pay the said compensation and cost to the complainant within 15 days from the date of the order.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this the 24th day of May 2012.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
