Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

342/2011

P.Petchiappan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Principal/Governer 'A' School - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.B.Karthikeyan

21 Dec 2015

ORDER

                                                                          Date of Complaint  : 17.11.2011

                                                                 Date of Order           :21.12.2015

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT :    THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L.,                  :  PRESIDENT                     

                     TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                :  MEMBER – I

                     DR.T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

                                                     

C.C.No. 342 / 2011

THIS  MONDAY  21^ST  DAY OF  DECEMBER 2015

 

P. Petchiappan,

S/o.A. Pitchaimani,

NO.1/15B, Boobala Royar Puram 1^st Street,

Tuticorin – 1.                                                     .. Complainant.

                                                         - Vs-

The Principal / Governor, “A” School, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Seventh Floor, Thousand Lights, Chennai                                                            .. Opposite party.		.. Opposite party.

 

For the complainant                     :   M/s. B. Karthikeyan & another      

For the opposite party                   :   Exparte   

 

           Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to the opposite party  to refund a sum of Rs.18,600/- paid by the complainant  and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as cost of this complaint to the complainant.  

 

ORDER

THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA,   ::    MEMBER-I

Even after receipt of the notice, the opposite party did not file written version.  Hence, the opposite party was set exparte on 29.2.2012.       The complainant filed proof affidavit.  Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the complainant.  

2.     Perused the complaint, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5  filed by the complainant  and proof affidavit and the entire C.C. records and considered the arguments of the complainant counsel.  

3.      The complainant contended that he wanted to admit his son P.Shivasakthi in I std in the 1^st opposite party school at Valasaravakkam branch and paid a sum of Rs.18,600/- as admission / registration fees on 2.2.2011 for which receipt was issued by the opposite party.    However the complainant’s work location was changed suddenly and he had to shift his family to his native place.   Hence he requested the opposite party’s official to refund the said amount of  Rs.18,600/- as he did not want admission for his son and gave a written request dated 21.4.2011 but the opposite party refused to receive his letter but illegally withheld his money.  

4.     The complainant further contended that he came to understand that  the opposite party does not have any recognition from the appropriate authorities nor do they have affiliation to any of the education boards of the Government.    Therefore he issued a legal notice dated 9.6.2011 to the opposite party to refund the amount paid to them.   They received the notice but failed to send any reply nor complied his demand.   Hence the above complaint is filed for refund of a sum of Rs.18,600/- along with compensation and cost of the complaint.

5.     It is evidenced through Ex.A2 & Ex.A3 that the opposite party had issued receipt for a sum of Rs.18,600/- received from the complainant for admission to I std for his son.   The contention of the complainant that due to change in working location he was forced to transfer his family to his native place and as such he sought for refund of admission fees from the opposite party is proved through Ex.A1 which is the letter addressed by the complainant to the opposite party.     Hence the contention of the complainant that the refusal of the opposite party to receive his written request by illegally withholding his amount without valid reason shows the willful act of the opposite party is acceptable.  

6.     Further since the complainant sought for refund of the admission fee for genuine reason well in advance even before commencement of classes, it is the duty of the opposite party to refund the same, whereas the opposite party failed to do so even after receipt of legal notice from the complainant i.e.Ex.A4 & Ex.A5.    It clearly shows that negligent act of the opposite party. 

7.     Further the complainant counsel also stated that the opposite party school does not have any recognition from the appropriate authorities for which he also referred to Review Application Nos.174, 175, 177 and 178 of 2014 in Writ Petition No.34709 of 2013 and 4040 of 2014 in the case of

Annamalai Chettiar

..Vs..

P.Giridharan & other

 

In which it is stated that in the writ petition it was admitted by the opposite party that their school was not recognized.    

8.     From the facts and circumstances it is crystal clear that  the opposite party failed to refund the admission fees paid by the complainant inspite of his request on genuine ground and also it is clear that the opposite party school has not obtained recognition from appropriate authorities   and as such the complainant is entitled for refund of fees.

9.     Further the contention of the complainant that due to the attitude of the opposite party he had to struggle for mobilizing of funds for making payment to another school for admission of his son is acceptable and the opposite party having retain the said amount would have benefited out of it, as such the opposite party is liable to refund the said amount of Rs.18,600/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of demand notice  i.e. 9.6.2011.

10.    Further the opposite party has not appeared before this forum and gave any contra evidence to prove his case.   As such they were set exparte.  

11.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to allow the complaint in part and the opposite party is directed to refund the sum of Rs.18,600/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of notice i.e. 9.6.2011 to till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.  Since interest is awarded considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are not inclined to grant any compensation.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party is directed to refund a sum of  Rs.18,600/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand and six hundred only) with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 9.6.2011 to till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt this order.

                Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  21^st   day of  December   2015.

 

 

MEMBER-I                                        MEMBER-II                                           PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s Side documents :

Ex.A1- 22.4.2011      - Copy of letter issued by the complainant.

Ex.A2- 2.2.2011        - Copy of Acknowledgment issued by the opposite party.

Ex.A3-           -                 - Copy of receipt for application fee.

Ex.A4- 9.6.2011        - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A5-           -                 - Copy of Ack. Card.

 

 

Opposite party’s side documents: -    .. Nil ..   (exparte)

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                                         MEMBER-II                                          PRESIDENT.