By Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President
The case of complainants in brief is that the 2nd complainant is the son of 1st complainant and he was the student of respondent school from UKG to 8th standard. In 8th standard he had studied at respondents school till August 22nd . The entire fees including the expenses of books also remitted by 1st complainant. The 2nd complainant was unable to use the school bus since tuition was arranged at Thiruvilwamala in the morning and evening. But the 1st respondent did not exempt the complainant from payment of bus fee. The complainants were forced to remit the bus fee for the months of June, July and August in those months bus facility is not enjoyed by 2nd complainant. Rs.220/- each was imposed as bus fee. When enquired by this the respondents misbehaved to 1st complainant. They told that it is unable to exempt the payment of school fee and if necessary the complainant can get TC from the school. The compulsory payment of bus fee on the part of respondents by 1st complainant is illegal. Later 2nd complainant was admitted at Government School, Pazhayannur on 25/8/08. After this the complainants wanted to get TC from the respondents but the respondents compelled to pay the entire fees upto 2009 April to issue the TC. Since the time permitted for production of TC at Govt. School, Pazhayannur had over and also to avoid the loss of academic days the complainants were forced to remit the entire fees of Rs.3,490/- demanded by respondents. Even after this the 1st respondent refused to issue TC by stating cultural programmes at the school. The 1st respondent misbehaved to 1st complainant and it is very insulting to him. So a lawyer notice was issued demanding compensation. The complainants are entitled to get the amounts sought. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments in brief are that the respondents school is an institution which is functioning very well from 1979 onwards. The 1st respondent is the principal of the school for the last 15 years. The 2nd respondent is the corporate manager of the school. At the time of admission all the students and parents are made known the rules and regulations of the school through prospectus and authorisation form. All are bound to obey the same. At the time of admission of 2nd complainant the complainants are also made to know the rules and regulations of the school and agreed the same. So the complainants are bound to obey the same. There is no practice of providing of uniform from the school. Other averments in the complaint are incorrect. The text books, note books, school tie, school diary are available from the school store and money should be paid at the school store itself. All the students are bound to pay tuition fees for 12 months and it will be before May 15th and likewise before the beginning of the class in 8th standard the tuition fees from 2nd complainant was made to pay before the month of May. The 2nd complainant was used to travel in the school bus from LKG to 7th standard and in the 8th standard also as per the request of complainant the authorization was issued to the student for travelling in the school bus. According to the prospectus for students those are enrolled to travel in the school bus should be travelled for the entire academic year in the school bus. If TC is obtained and vacating the school during the academic year the facility of school bus can be withdrawn. Since the 2nd complainant submitted the authorization form at the very beginning of the academic year he is not permitted to withdraw the use of the vehicle and is liable to pay the entire fees of the year. Other averments in the complaint are denied. The 2nd complainant was failed to remit tuition fees and conveyance fees of the months May, June and July and notice was issued. Then the 1st complainant come to the school and told that since tuition was arranged for 2nd complainant the facility of school bus is not necessary and so he will not pay the conveyance fee. In order to appear for the mid semester exam it is very necessary to clear the fees dues and so the tuition and conveyance fees for the months May, June and July were remitted by 1st complainant. Later the 1st complainant also paid the tuition fees in the month of August and also the conveyance fees. There is no compulsion from the respondents to remit any fees. After this on 13/8/08 the 1st complainant wanted to issue TC to admit 2nd complainant at a school near to their house. As per the prospectus TC will not be issued during the academic year in any reason other than change of residence. If there is any inevitable circumstance it will be permitted to issue TC on payment of entire fee. There is no misbehaviour on the part of respondents and TC was issued on 28/8/08. There is no deficiency in service from these respondents. Hence dismiss.
3. Points for consideration are that :
1) Whether there was any deficiency in service committed by respondents ?
2) If so reliefs and costs ?
4. Evidence consists of oral testimonies of PW1 and RW1, Exhibit P1 to P4 and Exhibits R1 to R9.
5. The complaint is filed to get back the fees remitted at respondents school.
6. Points: The son of 1st complainant who is the 2nd complainant was a student at respondents school from UKG to 8th standard upto August 22nd. It is the case of complainant that since tuition was arranged for the 2nd complainant in the morning and evening at Thiruvilwamala he was unable to use the service of school bus. But the respondents made to remit the bus fees even for the unused months of June, July and August. It is also the case that the complainants were forced to remit the entire tuition fees for the academic year in order to get TC from the school. The complainant would say that they are not bound to remit the fees, which is remitted at respondents school. They have remitted it only on the compulsion of respondents.
7.The respondents filed a detailed version in which it is stated that all the students and parents are bound to obey the rules and regulations stated in the prospectus and authorization form. According to them withdrawal of students during the school year is not generally allowed. If a student is to be withdrawn for reasons beyond control fees for the whole year must be paid before receiving the transfer certificate. It is also their opinion that those students who are using school transportation must use it for the whole year. Withdrawal between the school year is not permitted.
8.The 1st complainant is examined as PW1 and Exhibits P1 to P4 documents are marked. He is also a school teacher. It is his version that at the time of admission of the son at respondents school the prospectus was read and realized. The prospectus and authorization form were realized before the admission of his son at respondents school is the version of PW1. But it is his view that the prospectus in the year 2000 is applicable to him and his son. But the prospectus in the year 2000 is not produced by anybody. The respondents produced the prospectus of the year 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. The terms and conditions with regard to payment of tuition fees and conveyance fees are same in both the documents which are marked as Exhibits R1 and R2. But it is to be noted that the prospectus of the year 2000 is not produced and the respondents have no case that the rules and regulations contended in Exhibits R1 and R2 are the same in the year 2000 with regard to payment of tuition fees and conveyance fees. The 1st respondent is examined as RW1 and according to him if there is a change in the fees structure it will be notified. But no notification is produced before the Forum.
9.It is the definite case of respondents that all the students and parents are bound to obey rules and regulations prevailing at the school. Those will be contained in the prospectus also. As per Exhibits R1 and R2 withdrawal of students during the school year is not generally allowed. However if a student is to withdraw for reasons beyond control fees for the whole year must be paid before receiving the transfer certificate. In this case it is the version of PW1 that the son was made withdraw from the school only because of the misbehaviour of respondents. According to him when he expressed his unwillingness to pay the conveyance fee for the months where vehicle was not used by his son the respondents misbehaved and told that to get TC from the school. So PW1 was forced to transfer his son from respondents school. The son of complainant was a student of the school from UKG and when he attained at 8th standard these unfortunate incident had happened. A student who was studying for years should be treated as a member of the family. The bad approach on the part of respondents is unfair. When coming into the merit of the case it is to be considered that the respondents should produce the prospectus for the year 2000 which is known to PW1 and his son. The respondents have no case that in every year prospectus will be changed and it will be made available to all the students.
10. Another contention of respondents is that the students who are using school transportation must use it for the whole year. Withdrawal between school year is not permitted and it has stated in Exhibit R1 and R2. But as stated earlier whether it is contended in the prospectus for the year 2000 is unknown. According to RW1 fee structure will be changed in every five year on due notification. So it is proved that there will be change in the prospectus. He also admitted the fees of the year 2000-2008 are different. He also deposed that at the time of admission of the son of PW1 prospectus was served to him. So the version of PW1 that the prospectus of the year 2000 is applicable to him and his son is seen correct.
11. It is the case of complainants that the acceptance of fees as stated is illegal. During cross examination RW1 deposed that the remittance of fees likewise is not illegal as per the school rules. But Forum is seen that those rules are illegal. But that question is not the question to be decided here. The students and parents are bound by the rules and regulations of the school. But in this case PW1 was served with the prospectus in the year 2000 and the rules and regulations in that prospectus are unknown to the Forum. It is not produced. In this circumstance we found that the respondents committed deficiency in service.
12. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return Exhibit P4 amount and also Rs.660/-, the bus fee of the months June, July and August and compensation of Rs.;5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 30th day of August 2013.
