Complaint filed on: 04-05-2013

                                                      Disposed on: 19-08-2014

BEFORE THE BENGALURU IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, 7^TH FLOOR, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 052     

C.C.No.912/2013

DATED THIS THE 19^th AUGUST 2014

PRESENT

SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT

SRI.H.JANARDHANA, MEMBER

Complainant: -   

                                                Saroj Pradhan,

                                                C/o. Education Section,

                                                ASTE Air Force, Post Yemlur,

                                                Bangalore - 37     

V/s

Opposite party:- 

The Principal,

Vibgyor Kinds (Vibgyor High)

58/1, Thubarahalli,

Whitefield Road,

Bangalore-66                                    

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 refund 45,975=00 paid by him along with interest and cost.

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under.

The complainant has taken an admission of his son Ojas Ransingh in junior KG grade-I of Vibgyor Kids for the academic year 2012-2013 vide enrolment no.VK-ENRNO2770 by paying Rs.60,975=00 towards the admission of his son. The details of payments of admission are as under:

1. Cheque Admission during admission

1. Postdated cheques given

In the second week of June, due to some unavoidable circumstances, the complainant has discontinued the studies of his son from the school with informing the school authority about his decision. At the same time, the complainant has asked admission officer for refund of his fees which he has paid in advance. The admission officer told the complainant that this matter will be discussed with the higher authorities and she will let him know about the result. The complainant appraised her with the fact that his son has availed less than a week in the transport, so that money should be refunded after necessary deduction. After few days she replied negative stating that this is not the management policy to refund the amount and moreover the transport department is not coming under the school and their management is also not agreeing for the refund. Then the complainant told her for a meeting the principal which she has denied cluefully. So after getting clueless by the smart answers given by the admission officer, the complainant has decided to take the transfer certificate peacefully rather banging his head there in Vibgyor high school.  On 9-4-2013 while going through Times of India Newspaper the complainant has read an article by Hetal Vyas regarding refund of fees taken by an eminent school and this article motivates him to take up his case again with the school. So the complainant has written the same to the Principal through email and registered post on 10-4-2013. On 12-4-2013 the complainant got a mail from the Principal that this matter will be forwarded to higher authority and he will be given feedback at the earliest. After few days the complainant got the reply from the Vibgyor Team that already they have followed the refund policy and as per that the PDC’s were cancelled by him are still lying with them and they want the complainant to collect that PDCs as per their refund policy. As a Central Government Employee he is entitled to reimbursement of Rs.15,000=00 per year as per CEA scheme which he has already claimed from his office. Hence he is claiming for the refund of Rs.60,975-Rs.15,000=00=Rs.45,975=00, so the complainant has come up with the present complaint, praying to refund the amount along with interest.

          3. After service of the notice, the OP has appeared through its counsel and filed objection contending inter-alai as under:

          The contents and allegations of the complainant which are not specifically admitted hereunder and which are against the tenor of this reply may be deemed to be specifically denied by the OP. The averments made in para 1 of the complaint are not denied. With regard to the averments made in the para 2 of the complaint it is denied that in the second week of June due to some unavoidable circumstances, the complainant has to discontinue the studies of his son from the school of the OP, the other allegation made in this para by complainant are grossly misrepresented and so they are denied. All other allegations made by complainant are false and denied. With regard to the averments made in para 3 of the complaint, the OP denies any acknowledgement of alleged report in the Times of India dated 9-4-2013 and further denies any connection it has of whatsoever nature with this case before forum and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The OP has replied to all communications received from the complainant promptly and craves leave to rely on copies thereof when produced before this forum. Further in reply to averment made in para no.4 of the complaint, it is true that, the OP informed the complainant that in terms of its refund policy as enunciated in the Admission form and receipts acknowledged by the complainant, the fees once paid cannot be refunded. The Postdated cheques issued by the complainant were offered to the complainant to collect which the complainant refused stating that he has already issued stop payment advice to his bankers. The complainant took admission for his son master Ojas Ransingh in junior KG in OP institution in the month of April 2012 and not Vibgyor high as alleged. At the time of admission, the terms and conditions and related rules were explained to the complainant and his attention was specifically drawn to clause 12 of the admission form relating to the refund policy of the OP in case of cancellation of admission. Having understood and agreed with such rules as well as the terms and conditions the complainant signed the said Admission form and took admission for his son. The complainant’s son was on the rolls of the school of the OP from 7-6-2012 to 22-6-2012. The complainant wrote to the OP on 23-6-2012 expressing his desire to withdraw his son from the OP’s school and further requested that the postdated cheques given by him be cancelled and credit balance amount as per the refundable policy. Thus the complainant was aware of the refund policy and the OP issued school leaving certificate on 29-6-2012. After withdrawing the child from the school on 23-6-2012 the complainant wrote to the OP only on 9-4-2013 based on some alleged newspaper report and the OP once again responded to his queries. This was in compliance with the terms and conditions and rules reflected in the admission form which were duly acknowledged and signed by the complainant. The receipts issued by the OP for the fees remitted by the complainant clearly state that fees once paid are neither refundable nor transferable which the complainant was fully aware of it. So it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.    

   4. So from the averments of the complaint of the complainant and objection of the OP, the following points arise for our consideration.

1. Whether the complainant proves that, the OP is negligent and there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP in not refunding the fees paid towards his son?
2. If point no.1 is answered in the affirmative, what relief, the complainant is entitled to?
3. What order?

5. Our findings on the above points are;

          Point no.1:  In the affirmative

Point no.2:  The complainant is entitled to claim a sum of Rs.45,975=00 and Rs.2,000=00 towards cost of litigation.

          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 documents along with complaint. On the other hand, one Sunil Thomas, who being the authorized signatory of OP has filed his affidavit on behalf of OP and produced three documents along with list dated 11-3-2014. We have heard the arguments of both parties and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both sides in between lines.

7. One Saroj Pradhan, who being the complainant has stated in his affidavit that, he has taken admission of his son Ojas Ransingh in junior KG grade-I of Vibgyor Kids for the academic year 2012-2013 vide enrolment no.VK-ENRNO2770 and he has paid Rs.60,975=00 towards the admission of his son. In the second week of June, due to some unavoidable circumstances, he has discontinued the studies of his son from the school and also informed the school authority about his decision and he requested the admission officer for refund of his fees which he has paid in advance. She told that this matter will be discussed with the higher authorities and she will let him know about the result. He appraised her with the fact that his son has availed less than a week in the transport, so that money should be refunded after necessary deduction. After few days she replied negative stating that this is not the management policy to refund the amount and transport department is not coming under the school and their management is also not agreeing for the refund. Then he told her for a meeting the principal but she did not allow him to meet the principal and then he has decided to take the transfer certificate peacefully.  On 9-4-2013 while going through Times of India Newspaper he has read an article by Hetal Vyas regarding refund of fees taken by an eminent school and this article motivates him to take up his case again with the school. So he has written a letter to the Principal through email and registered post on 10-4-2013. On 12-4-2013 he got a mail from the Principal that this matter will be forwarded to higher authority and he will be given feedback at the earliest. After few days he got the reply from the OP that they have already cancelled the postdated cheques however were no answers with regard to the refund of the total amount of Rs.60,975=00. The OP with dishonest intention is not providing fair response to his refund request. The OP has collected Rs.60,975=00 by way of cheque towards admission of his son on March 2012 when the school reopened in June 2012  and his son attended the school for one week only and thereafter the admission was cancelled on his request. The school authority has collected the admission fee for the entire year and he is claiming for the refund of Rs.60,975-00 – Rs.15,000=00 = Rs.45,975=00. So he has prayed to allow the complaint and pass an order as prayed in the complaint.

          8. Let us have a look at the relevant documents of the complainant. The complainant has produced copy of letter dated 9-4-2013 sent by the complainant to the Principal of OP praying to refund the amount of Rs.60,975=00 as he could not send his son to the school due to unavoidable circumstances. Copies of receipts issued by the OP are produced by the complainant for having received Rs.20,000=00, Rs.12,000=00, Rs.20,000=00, Rs.8,975=00 and Rs.8,975=00. Copy of school verification certificate of complainant is produced and that certificate was issued by the Principal of OP dated 21-5-2012. Copy of School Leaving Certificate of complainant’s son issued by the OP school is also produced. One email letter of Principal of OP is produced wherein it is stated by the Principal of OP that, attachments sent by the complainant shall be forwarded to their higher authority for their guidance and decision.

          9. At this stage, it is relevant to have a cursory glance at the material evidence of OP. One Sunil Thomas who being the Authorized Signatory of OP has stated in his affidavit that, the complainant took admission for his son master Ojas Ransingh in OP institution for junior KG standard and at the time of admission, the terms and conditions were explained to the complainant. Having understood the terms and conditions and agreed with rules, the complainant signed the Admission form and took admission for his son. The complainant’s son was on the rolls of the school of the OP from 7-6-2012 to 22-6-2012. The complainant wrote a letter to the OP on 23-6-2012 expressing his desire to withdraw his son from the OP’s school and further requested to cancel the postdated cheques and accordingly postdated cheques issued by the complainant were cancelled and they issued school leaving certificate to the complainant‘s son. The receipts issued by them are clearly state that fees once paid is nonrefundable. So it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.   

          10. The OP has produced the admission form of complainant’s son which was duly filled and signed by the complainant dated 30-3-2012 wherein it is clearly stated that fees once paid is nonrefundable. So also the OP has produced copies of receipts for having received the amount by OP from complainant, copy of attendance of junior KG grade-I is also produced wherein in it is stated that the complainant’s son has attended the school for some days.

          11. On making careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence of both parties, it is explicitly clear that, the complainant has got admission to his son in the OP institution to junior KG grade-I by paying an amount of Rs.60,975=00 and son of the complainant has attended the school for some days in the month of June 2012 and thereafter the complainant took decision not to send his son to OP school and accordingly the son of complainant did not attend the school. Now the complainant has come up with the present complaint to return his amount paid towards admission of his son to OP school. It is no doubt true that, in the receipt copies and admission form of OP school there is mention that once fees paid is nonrefundable. But it is worthy to be noted that, the OP has collected an amount of Rs.60,975=00 from the complainant for the academic year 2012-13, the complainant’s son did not attend the school entirely during the year 2012-13, but the complainant’s son attended some days only in the month of June 2012. When the complainant has not availed the service of OP school for the year 2012-13 after payment of Rs.60,975=00 it is not justifiable on the part of the OP in refusing the payment of entire amount of Rs.60,975=00 under guises of nonrefundable clause in the admission form and copies of receipt. Since no full service has been given by the OP to the son of complainant during the year 2012-13 no question of holding the entire amount of complainant’s money. So from the material placed by the complainant, we are of the view that, the complainant who comes to forum seeking relief has proved with believable material evidence that, the OP is negligent and there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP in not refunding his amount paid to the OP school towards admission of his son to junior KG grade-I, and accordingly, we answer this point in a affirmative.

12. The complainant has paid Rs.60,975=00 to OP for getting admission of his son to OP institution. The complainant’s son has attended some days during the month of June-2012. The complainant has stated in his affidavit that, deducting Rs.15,000=00 he may kindly be given Rs.45,975=00. So looking to the evidence of complainant and attendance of complainant’s son to the OP school for few days in the month of June 2012, we feel it proper to deduct Rs.15,000=00 in the amount of Rs.60,975=00 and return Rs.45,975=00 to the complainant and not the entire amount. So the OP is directed to pay Rs.45,975=00 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which, the OP shall pay the said amount to the complainant along with 6% interest per annum on the said amount from the date of this order to till the date of realization and the OP is further directed to pay Rs.2,000=00 to the complainant towards cost of litigation and accordingly, the complaint of complainant is sustainable. 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 pay Rs.45,975=00 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which, the OP shall pay the said amount to the complainant alongwith 6% interest per annum on the said amount from the date of this order to till the date of realization.

The OP is further directed to pay Rs.2,000=00 to the complainant towards cost of litigation.

          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 19^th day of August 2014).

MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

1.      Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

1. Saroj Pradhan, who being the complainant was examined on 4-9-2013.

2.      Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:-

a) Document no.1:         Letter copy of complainant addressed to the OP dated 9-4-2013.

b) Document no.2:         Copies of receipts issued by the OP  school for having received Rs.20,000=00, Rs.12,000=00, Rs.20,000=00, Rs.8,975=00 and Rs.8,975=00

d) Document no.3:         School Verification Certificate

e) Document no.4:                   School Leaving Certificate

f) Document no.5:          Email of letter of Principal of OP School to complainant.

3.      Witness examined on behalf of the OPs by way of affidavit:

a)       Sunil Thomas who being the authorized signatory of the OP was examined on 4-12-2013.

4. Documents produced on behalf of the opposite party:-

1. Document no.1:        Admission form of complainant’s

Son which was duly filled and signed by the complainant   

1. Document no.2:        Receipts copies of OP school for 

having received the amount from the complainant 

1. Document no.3:        Copy of attendance of Junior KG

Grade-I.

MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT