DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.450 of 11-10-2013

Decided on 06-02-2014

1.Manoj Kumar S/o Darshan Kumar

2.Deepak Kumar S/o Manohar Lal

R/o Sangat Mandi, Tehsil and District Bathinda.

3.Jagtar Singh S/o Balwant Singh

4.Binder Singh S/o Pritam Singh

5.Gurmit Singh S/o Mukand Singh

6.Parvinder Singh S/o Gurbax Singh

7.Nirmal Singh S/o Jagtar Singh

8.Jaswinder Singh S/o Bhajan Singh

All R/o village Kot Guru, Tehsil and District Bathinda.

........Complainants

Versus

1.The Principal, Redcliff School, 430-P Shant Nagar, Near Model Town, Phase-II, Bathinda.

2.Redcliff School, 287-288, Bathinda, Badal Main Road, Near Village Naruana, District Bathinda, through its Authorized Signatory/Representative.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainants: Sh.Rajesh Bansal, counsel for the complainants.

For Opposite parties: Sh.J.S Kohli, counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainants under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the children of the complainants namely Vanshika-daughter and Chander-son of Manoj Kumar, Harjot Singh Mann S/o Jagtar Singh, Gurjant Singh S/o Binder Singh, Gurpal Singh S/o Gurmit Singh, Sanamdeep Singh S/o Parvinder Singh, Simran Preet Kaur-daughter and Shailbaz Singh-son of Nirmal Singh and Jasmeen Kaur D/o Jaswinder Singh, applied for the admission in the school of the opposite parties at Branch Main Badal Road, Naruana, District Bathinda, in different class. The complainants deposited the amount of Rs.10,000/- for each students with the opposite parties, they promised the complainants to give admission to their children and assured them that no admission fee would be charged for the next ten years and only monthly fee would be charged from them and also assured them to provide the best standard studies to their children. The opposite parties have failed to give any admission to the children of the complainants and have been putting off the matter on one or other pretext. The complainants time and again approached the office of the opposite parties and requested them to provide the admission to their children as assured by them, but to no effect. The opposite parties delayed the matter without any reasonable cause and excuse and having no other alternative, the complainants got their children admitted in the different schools and classes and due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the complainants and their children suffered mental tension, agony and botheration. The complainants repeatedly visited the office of the opposite parties and requested them to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- for each children that has been deposited by them for the admission of their children, but the opposite parties have failed to do the needful. The complainants have also got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on dated 2.9.2013, but they have failed to give any reply to the said legal notice. Hence the present complaint filed by the complainants to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- per student alongwith cost and compensation.

2. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and have taken the legal objection that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as the Educational Institutions do not come within the purview of 'Act' and in this regard they have referred various authorities. The opposite parties pleaded that as per the terms and conditions of the admission form, it is specifically agreed by the complainants that 'I shall not claim refund of any part of the fees deposited in the school at the time of admission of my ward except the amount of Caution Money & Bus Security on the occasion of withdrawal of my ward from the school'. The opposite parties admitted that the complainants approached them for the admission of their children in their school and deposited the amount of Rs.10,000/- each against the receipts. The opposite parties never assured the complainants that no other admission fee would be charged from their children every year or only monthly fee would be charged. However, the opposite parties are providing the best education to the children studying in their school besides other necessities including purified drinking water, playground for playing and other facilities. The opposite parties were ready to give the admission to the children of the complainants for which the complainants had deposited the amount of Rs.10,000/- for each student with them but later on they themselves did not turn up and failed to get their children admitted in their school. The complainants are not entitled for the refund of any amount from the opposite parties as they themselves have failed to get their children admitted in their school. The opposite parties never received any legal notice from the complainants.

3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. Admittedly, the complainants have deposited the amount of Rs.10,000/- each for their children namely Vanshika-daughter and Chander-son of Manoj Kumar, Harjot Singh Mann S/o Jagtar Singh, Gurjant Singh S/o Binder Singh, Gurpal Singh S/o Gurmit Singh, Sanamdeep Singh S/o Parvinder Singh, Simran Preet Kaur-daughter and Shailbaz Singh-son of Nirmal Singh and Jasmeen Kaur D/o Jaswinder Singh.

6. The submission of the complainants is that they have visited time and again to the office of the opposite parties after depositing the amount of Rs.10,000/- in the name of their children and requested them to give the admission to their children, but the opposite parties have been delaying the matter on one or the other pretext and ultimately, the complainants got their children admitted in the different schools and classes. The complainants requested the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- each children that has been deposited by them for the admission of their children, but they have failed to refund the same.

7. On the other hand the submission of the opposite parties is that they were ready to give the admission to the children of the complainants but later on the complainants themselves did not turn up and failed to get their children admitted in their school. The opposite parties never assured the complainants that no other admission fee would be charged from their children every year or only monthly fee would be charged. The opposite parties are providing the best education to the children studying in their school besides other necessities including purified drinking water, playground for playing and other facilities. The opposite parties further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the admission form, it is specifically agreed by the complainants that they shall not claim refund of any part of the fees deposited in the school at the time of admission of their ward except the amount of Caution Money & Bus Security on the occasion of withdrawal of their ward from the school. The opposite parties have taken the legal objection that the Educational Institutions do not come within the purview of 'Act'.

8. A perusal of documents placed on file shows that Rs.10,500/- has been deposited in the name of Vanshika D/o Manoj Kumar on dated 20.11.2012 vide Ex.C2; Rs.10,500/- has been deposited in the name of Chandan Goyal S/o Manoj Kumar on dated 20.11.2012 vide Ex.C3; Rs.10,000/- has been deposited in the name of Keshav Singla on dated 10.11.2012 vide Ex.C4; Rs.10,000/- has been deposited in the name of Harjot Singh Mann on dated 10.11.2012 vide Ex.C5; Rs.10,000/- has been deposited in the name of Gurjant Singh on dated 10.11.2012 vide Ex.C6; Rs.10,000/- has been deposited in the name of Gurpal Singh on dated 10.11.2012 vide Ex.C7; Rs.10,000/- has been deposited in the name of Sandeep Singh on dated 4.3.2013 vide Ex.C8; Rs.500/- has been deposited in the name of Simranpreet Kaur on dated 12.11.2012 vide Ex.C9; Rs.10,500/- has been deposited in the name of Shailbaz Singh Sidhu on dated 12.11.2012 vide Ex.C10 and Rs.10,000/- has been deposited in the name of Simranpreet Kaur D/o Nirmal Singh on dated 10.12.2012 vide Ex.C11. The complainants have placed on file the receipt, Ex.C4, in the name of Keshav Singla but in the complaint in the name of the students the name of Keshav Singla has not been mentioned anywhere. The complainants have also sent a legal notice vide Ex.C12 and have placed on file the postal receipts, Ex.C13 and Ex.C14, which falsifies the version of the opposite parties that the complainants have not sent them any legal notice.

9. On the other hand Jaandeep Sandhu, Principal of Redcliff School, Bathinda has deposed in his affidavit, Ex.OP1/1 that the complainants have themselves failed to get their children admitted in their school. The opposite parties were ready to give the admission to the children of the complainants for which the complainants have deposited the amount of Rs.10,000/- for each student with them. He has further deposed in Para No.6 of his affidavit that as per the terms and conditions of the admission form, it was specifically agreed by the complainants that 'I shall not claim refund of any part of the fees deposited in the school at the time of admission of my ward except the amount of Caution Money & Bus Security on the occasion of withdrawal of my ward from the school'. But in the case in hand the opposite parties never called the above mentioned students for admission or gave them any date to attend the classes. Thus when the opposite parties have not given the admission to the children of the complainants in their school, thus Clause of admission form is not applicable on the parents of the above mentioned children. The opposite parties have placed on file nothing to show that they have ever called the children of the complainants or gave them any tentative date of starting of the classes. Moreover the opposite parties have not placed on file any document to show that the class of the children of the complainants will began from so and so date/month and a perusal of file shows that the most of admissions have been done in the month of November, whereas in the normal course the new sessions of schools begin in the month of March/April. The opposite parties have taken the legal objection that Educational Institutions do not come within the purview of 'Act', in this regard the support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs. Dr.Minathi Rath, I (2012) CPJ 194 (NC), wherein it has been held:-

“i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r), 14(1)(c), 21(b)-Education-Refund of fee-Unfair trade practice-Deficiency in service-Name withdrew from petitioner's coaching classes-Refund of advance fee for unattended period claimed-Denied-Complaint filed-Allowed and petitioner directed to refund advance fee paid for unattended period to respondents-Appeal before State Commission-Dismissed-Hence, present revision petitions-Although petitioners were not conventional educational institution but since, they are providing coaching and training to students of an educational nature, same principle that applies to educational institutions would also apply to these institutions in respect of fees charged by them including advance fee-Thus, in view of settled law, petitioners could not charge full advance fees for two years and charge prescribed fee for one year only-For this reason petitioners could only charge advance fee for one year-In view of above, respondents entitled to get refund of advance fee after deducting non-refundable service tax for unattended second year of course-No infirmity in impugned order and so, impugned order upheld.

ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 2(1)(c), 2(1)(d)(ii), 2(1)(e)-Complaint-Maintainability of-Consumer Dispute-Challenged on ground that dispute between parties is not consumer dispute-Admittedly, respondents are consumers who sought to avail services for consideration and petitioner is provider of these services-Thus, these cases are consumer disputes within meaning of Act.”

Further the support can also be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Krishna Institute of Education & Technology & Ors. Vs. Ravneet Kaur & Anr., 2013(I) CPC 324 (NC), wherein it has been held:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 21(b) & 2(1)(g)-Bed. Course-Education-Cutoff date had passed but still counseling was done by OP-Reasoning about cutoff date not satisfactorily explained-Moreover, State Commission rightly dismissed as it was filed with delay of 100 days-Refund of Rs.1.7 lacs granted by Fora justified-Ratio of Bihar School Education Examination Board's case 2009(3) CPC 217 SC not applicable to the facts of the case as petitioner is a private institution not discharging statutory function petition dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/-.

In Para No.7 the Hon'ble National Commission has held:-7)We find that the fact of the case of the revision petitioner are totally different. It is not the case of the petitioner that it is a statutory board. It is a private educational institution. The petitioner cannot claim to be discharging any statutory function. Therefore, the case of the revision petitioner can draw no support from the above decision.”

Thus in the light of above settled precedents by the Hon'ble National Commission, the objection of the opposite parties is not tenable.

10. The opposite parties have failed to give admission to the children of the complainants without assigning any cogent and convincing reason. The opposite parties have also failed to refund the advance deposited by the complainants. The opposite parties cannot grab the hard earned money of the parents of the students.

11. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is accepted with Rs.40,000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- each deposited in the name of the children of the complainants to the complainants. The cost and compensation be divided in equal shares amongst the complainants.

12. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

13. In case of non-compliance the amount that is to be refunded to the complainants will carry interest @ 9% per annum since its deposit till realization.

14. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

06-02-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member