DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.425 of 20/10/2016
Decided on: 10/04/2019
Tejinder Singh s/o B. S. Arora, aged 35 years, R/o H. No.505, Street No.9, Ghuman Nagar, Sirhind Road, Patiala
.…...Complainant
Versus
The Principal, St. Peters Academy, Patiala.
……Opposite Party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member
Sh. B. S. Dhaliwal, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh. Tarun Sharma Adv. counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Puneet K. Sharma Adv counsel for the OP.
ORDER
INDERJEET KAUR, MEMBER
1. Briefly stated, case of the complainant is that he secured admission of his daughter Ruheen Arora in the OP school in L.K.G. for the session 2016-17 by depositing Rs.20,000/- as admission fee. Registration number 056 was allotted by the OP.
2. It is pleaded that due to some unavoidable circumstances complainant was unable to go ahead with the admission of his daughter. So he surrendered the seat on 12.3.2016 by submitting written application. Academic session was to commence in the month of April, 2016. The OP admitted another child against the seat surrendered by the daughter of the complainant, as such OP has not suffered any loss. The daughter of the complainant has not obtained any coaching from OP, as such, she is entitled to refund of Rs.20,000/-. Complainant has already requested for refund of fee by written application dated 12/3/2016 but to no response. He even served a legal notice upon OP on 12/7/2016. OP responded but failed to refund the fee. This act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint. Complainant has prayed for a direction to the OP to refund Rs.20.000/- along with interest @ 12 % from the date of complaint till actual realization.
3. Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In reply, OP raised preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form as education is not a goods. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. That school has been discharging its duties honestly, effectively and efficiently. It is one of the prestigious institutions of the town and is well known for imparting quality education. The system of the school is transparent that is why daughter of the complainant was admitted in LKG class after conducting lottery and no objection was raised against the conducting of the lottery. As per the notice board, parents of the child deposit the fee. Daughter of the complainant was allotted Roll No.38 and her name was entered in attendance sheet for LKG Section B of the school. The LKG class started on 8/4/2016. On the very 1st day the child was found absent and so on on 11th, 12th, 18th, 20th, 21st and 22nd. Since the child remained absent for consecutive six days, her name was struck down, as per instructions of the school referred in the prospectus. That the complaint is misuse of process of law.
4. On merits also, OP has reiterated its stand as taken in the legal objections. It is further submitted that alleged application dated 12.3.2016 was never received in the office of OP. There is no clause or provision in the instructions of the school to surrender the seat and seek refund of fee thereafter. It is denied that parents of the child surrendered the seat of their ward well in advance in the absence of any document shown in this support. It is further denied that vacant seat was filled up in the month of March, 2016. It is specifically mentioned in Item No.6 of the prospectus of the school that fee once paid shall not be refunded. It is denied that OP admitted another child against this vacant seat. In fact the seat of this child was filled up in the month of May, 2016. No request has been received in the School for the refund of fee except of CPC notice in the month of July, 2016. In the end, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5 Both the parties led their respective evidence.
6 In evidence, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA, copy of legal notice Ex.C-1, reply to legal notice Ex.C-2, letter for surrender of admission Ex.C-3 and closed the complainant evidence.
7 In order to rebut this evidence OP tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.OP-A, copy of admission notice for LKG Session 2016-17 Ex.OP-1, copy of attendance sheet of LKG-B for April 2016 Ex.OP-2, copy of selected students for year 2016-17 Girls Ex.OP-3, copy of selected students for year 2016-17 Boys Ex.OP-4, copy of rules and regulations of the school Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence.
8 Ld. Counsel for the OP has filed written arguments. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
9 Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the case of the complainant is admitted by the OP. It is admitted that the daughter of the complainant took admission with the OP in the session 2016-17. The version of the complainant is that seat was surrendered before start of the session. Copy of the email Ex.C-3 prove that the OP was intimated on 12.3.2016 i.e. much before the start of the session regarding surrender of the seat. OP has also admitted fulfillment of the seat surrendered by the daughter of the complainant. As OP was intimated well in advance and OP has fulfilled the seat surrendered by the daughter of the complainant, therefore, no harm has been caused to the OP. OP is not justified to withheld the fee got deposited from the complainant on account of his daughter. OP is under obligation to refund the fee. OP has raised objection regarding maintainability of the complaint in separate application. This objection was not raised in the written reply. Therefore, this objection is not tenable. Even otherwise, dispute is regarding refund of fee. Matter does not involve any statutory provisions of the OP. In these circumstances, complaint before the Forum is also maintainable. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the complainant has cited:
- Buddhist Mission Dental v/s Bhupesh Khurana 2009 (4) SCC 484
- WLC college India Ltd v/s Ajay S. Bhatt III (2016) CPJ 280 (NC)
10 It is further submitted that the OP is not fair before this Forum. Instead of bringing true facts before the Forum OP is trying to defend itself on false plea and on forged and fabricated documents. In written version, OP has submitted that Roll No.38 was allotted to the daughter of the complainant and the same was entered in attendance sheet. The LKG Class started on 8.4.2016 and the child (daughter of the complainant) was found absent on the very first day and then on 11th, 12th, 18th, 20th, 21st and 22nd. As OP was already intimated on 12.3.2016 regarding surrender of the seat, therefore, there was no question of the daughter of the complainant to attend the classes. The attendance sheet produced by the OP shows that Roll No. allotted to the daughter of the complainant is 39 and not 38, as mentioned in the written version. Therefore, the only inference is that OP has forged and fabricated the record only to save itself from refund of the fee. As OP has taken false plea and produced fabricated record, therefore, the OP is not entitled to any relief. OP has pleaded in the written version that the seat vacated by the daughter of the complainant was filled up in the month of May, 2016. A fee receipt has been produced by the OP of one Pukhraj Singh to prove this fact, but this fee receipt produced by the OP rather proves that he was also admitted in the month of April, 2016 and the fee from April,2016 to June, 2016 was received in the very first instance. This fact also shows that OP has not brought the correct facts before the Forum.
11 On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has submitted that complainant has filed this complaint for refund of the fee. Therefore, this matter does not fall within the ambit of consumer dispute. Complaint is not maintainable. Complainant is not entitled to any relief.
12 In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the OP has cited:
(i) 2015(3) CLT 419(Pb.SC) Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa College v/s Manpreet Singh wherein it was observed that educational institutions are neither providing service nor they are service providers to be covered under the CP Act..
(ii) 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC) P. T. Koshy vs Ellen Charitable Trust.
13 It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the OP that even otherwise as the daughter of the complainant failed to attend the classes for a period of six consecutive days, the name of the child is to be struck down. The documentary evidence prove that classes started w.e.f. 8.4.2016 but the daughter of the complainant did not attend the classes for a consecutive period of 6 days. Therefore, her name was struck off w.e.f. 23.4.2016. OP has taken the action as per the instructions of the school. Therefore, no deficiency in service can be attributed on its part. Complainant cannot claim refund of the fee.
14 Since the OP has raised the objection regarding maintainability of the complaint, therefore, before coming to the merits, it is to be seen whether complaint is maintainable or not.
15 Complainant has simply claimed refund of the fee deposited by him on behalf of his daughter. The version of the complainant is that seat was vacated before start of the session, as such, dispute is regarding refund of fee. In the case of Buddhist Mission Dental (Supra), Hon’ble Apex court has reiterated the following observations:-
"Imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of `service' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institutions. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. The complainants had hired the services of the respondent for consideration so they are consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act."
16 In case of WLC College India Ltd. (Supra) also, Hon’ble National Commission examined the matter and considered the cases of P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & ors. Civil Appeal No.22532 of 2012, decided on 9.8.2012: Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (II) SCC 159 and Mayank Tiwari Vs. FIITJEE Ltd. RP No.4335 of 2015, decided on 8/12/2014 (NC) and observed that these cases relates to Statutory powers and functions of the educational institutions or the quality of education, but the facts of the cited case were relating to the administrative aspects and different from the cases cited. Therefore, from the observations recorded in both cases, we can safely concluded that educational institutions are also services provider and jurisdiction of Fora is not barred when the matter relates to administrative aspects and not to statutory powers. In this case, dispute is regarding only refund of fees. Therefore, the complaint is maintainable before this Forum.
17 Now coming to the main controversy. Admittedly, daughter of the complainant took admission in the school of the OP for LKG Class. The session was to be commenced from 8.4.2016. Complainant has pleaded that OP was intimated well in advance regarding surrender of the seat. Although OP has not admitted this fact but complainant has placed on record copy of email Ex.C-3 dated 12.3.2016 to prove that OP was intimated well in advance. OP has also pleaded that daughter of the complainant remained absent for 6 consecutive days. Now it is to be seen whether this fact is proved, as claimed by the OP. In the written reply OP has mentioned that Roll No.38 was allotted to the daughter of the complainant. OP has also placed on record attendance record but as per this record name of the daughter of the complainant is mentioned at R.No.39. Roll No.38 is allotted to one Roopagadh Singh. Therefore, this fact itself create doubt on the genuineness of the record. Complainant has also placed on record copy of email to prove that OP was intimated well in advance. When the OP was intimated regarding surrender of the seat, there was no question to attend the classes by the daughter of the complainant. Admittedly, OP has fulfilled the seat left by the daughter of the complainant. The academic session was to start from April, 2016. The last candidate mentioned in the attendance register is Pukhraj Singh. His fee receipt is also brought on record by the OP which proves that OP has charged fee from April, 2016 to June, 2016 (for the period for which the fee from the daughter of the complainant was received). It also proves that the seat vacated by the daughter of the complainant was fulfilled by the OP without suffering any financial loss.
18 In these circumstances, OP is not justified to deny refund of fee received from the complainant for his daughter. Denial of refund, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
19 For the aforesaid reasons, complaint is partly accepted with costs of Rs.5,000/-. OP is directed to refund the fee received from the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% from the date of deposit till payment. Opposite party is further directed to comply the order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
20 The complaint could not be decided within statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
21 Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules and file be indexed and consigned to the record.
PRONOUNCED
DATED: 10/04/2019
B. S. DHALIWAL INDERJEET KAUR
MEMBER MEMBER
