Complainant Smt. Soni Sharma W/o late Dilip Kumar Sharma, the complainant who filed the complaint earlier and the present complainant being wife has been substituted after the death of Dilip Kumar Sharma. The claim of the complainant is that the complainant paid Rs. 39,690/- towards admission charges and tuition fee and bus fee for admission of his son in preparatory class in the O.P. school on 05.02.2015, for its refund and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost.
2 The case of the complainant is that her son Mohit was admitted in the O.P. School after payment of fee, admission charges and Bus Charges in the year 2015. Mohit attended the school 66 days out of 67 days but he was not promoted to the higher class nor he was allowed to continue in the preparatory class and he was forced to leave the school. The complainant met the Principal of the school several times and requested to continue in the same class but the O.P. denied the request. A legal notice was sent to the O.P.
The act of the O.P. is a deficiency in service and liable to refund the amount paid by the complainant.
3 Complainant has filed following Anxs:-
Anx-1 Copy of the I.D. Card.
Anx-2 Copy of the admission form.
Anx-3 and 3/1 Copy of the payment receipts.
Anx-4 and 4/1 Copy of the legal notice and reply.
Anx-5 Copy of the Letter.
4 O.P. Principal St. Xavier’s School, Bokaro appeared and filed W.S. It is submitted that the admission of Mohit is not denied but the performance of the student through its academic progress report, the result was held up and the guardian was called for by the Principal to know and discuss the difficulties to the son of the complainant and it was decided, the students who have not got the progress report have to attend extra class but the complainant not sent his ward, who never attended the extra class organized by the school for which the progress report was held up and the sole reason for not giving promotion to the higher class for failure to attend the extra classes. So there is no deficiency on the part of the school and therefore, O.P. is not liable because the ward of the complainant was given full teaching class for which the tuition fee was charged and therefore, the case is liable to be dismissed.
F I N D I N G S
5 We perused the record and the documents filed by the complainant. The complainant is a consumer and the dispute as raised by the complainant is a consumer dispute.
However, from entire facts stated by the complainant and the O.P. in the W.S. we come to the conclusion the complainant avail the fruit of payment for teaching of his ward in preparatory class and the school has given the due attention. However, it appears that the ward of the complainant could not do well in spite of attending classes 66 days out 67 teaching classes. The complainant has not mentioned why his ward was not sent to attend extra classes on payment for which the school has not promoted the child to the higher class.
6 In the result, we do not found any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and accordingly this complaint is without merit and accordingly it is hereby dismissed.
