PRESENT

                   Complainant – Absent.   

                   Opponent by Adv. Antima Dalal  present.  

ORDER

(Per- Mr. S. D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President

1.                The complainant filed complaint for deficiency in service against opponent as per section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.1986.

2.                The complainant’s Son preet and daughter Anooshka were admitted to standard III and Jr. K.G. respectively for academic year  2010-2011 in Witty International School run by the opposite parties.  The complainant paid fees in advance in Sep. 2009 though school commences in June 2010.

3.                The complainant alleged that in 2009 ( i.e. academic year 2009-2010) while granting admission to Anooska in nursery,  opposite party recovered Rs. 35,000/- as one time fee in addition to their normal fees of Rs. 38,500/- in the form of donation.

4.                The complainant alleged that, while admission is for academic year 2009-2010 the one time fee is collected in Oct.2008.  There is  no justification for such unfair practice.

5.                The complainant stated that though admission for his children for academic year 2010-2011 was continued and payment was made in advance , the complainant was trying to get admission in ICSE board School where the fee was reasonable.  He could arrange for such admission for both his children in May 2010.

6.                The complainant requested  opponent vide letter dated 21.5.2010 and requested school leaving certificate and return of fees paid in advance for academic year 2010.-2011 as the same would commence in June 2010.

7.                The complainant sent letter dated 2.6.2010 requesting to refund Rs.40,500/- which was neither replied nor complied by opp.  The complainant’s father Mr.S.P. Gundecha went to meet Mr. Vinay Jain.

8.                The complainant stated that decision of opposite parties in not refunding the amount of Rs.40,500/- amounts to unfair trade practice.   The opp. was not justified in insisting for payment of Rs. 35,000/- as one time fee.

9.                The complainant prayed for direction to opponent to refund to complainant amount of Rs. 40,500/-, Rs. 35,000/- as well as compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and cost. 

10.              The complaint was admitted on 27.7.2011.  The opp. filed written statement on 8.9.2011.  It is alleged that all the allegation made by the complainant are false to his knowledge.  The complainant has sought refund  of Rs.35,000/- paid by him in respect of his daughter Anooska on 20.10.2008.  The complaint is barred under S. 24 A of  Consumer Protection Act.

11.              The opp. stated that Pratiksha  Foundation Charitable trust is registered as per  Bombay Public Trust Act. 1950.  The school is an international School committed to providing education of high quality and is known for its high standards of ethics and  quality.

12.              The opponent stated that complainant at first  approached the school in 2004 regarding admission of his son preet in play group.  The school has been following a uniform pattern of charging fees.  The complainant sought admission for Anooska in 2008.  In respect of both children parents furnished positive feed back.

13.              The opp. alleged that complainant cancelled admissions of both his children on 27.5.2010 after school operation started on 15.5.2010.  As per school cancellation policy all applications for cancellation are expected to be submitted on or before 30^th April.

14.              The opp. alleged that considering long standing relations with parent of complainant , granted refund of 64 % of total fees of  Preet and 50 % of total fee of Miss. Anushka  as a gesture of good will.

15.              The opp. stated that complainant was interested in taking admission at other school by burdening the school with financial losses of one year’s fees of two students.

16.              The opp. stated that complainant’s wife did collect post dated cheque and school leaving certificates in respect of both children on 31.5.2010.  without any demand.

17.              The opponent submitted that complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost as per section 26 of Consumer Protection Act.1986.

18.              We have perused complaint, written statement and all the documents produced on record on behalf of both parties.

19.              Admittedly complainant paid the amount  for admission for the academic year 2010.2011.  The said fees was paid in advance prior to commencement of academic year.  The complainant wanted to change the school due to financial problems as fees of the opponent school is higher. 

20.              The complainant made application after he got admission of his children in other school.  The school leaving certificate and cheque towards part payment is taken by complainant’s wife on 31.5.2010.

21.              Admittedly opposite party deducted part amount at the time of refund of fees, on receipt of application.  An amount of 64 % and 50 % was deducted at the time of refund of payment.

22.              As per settled legal position, opponent is under an obligation to justify the  retention  of  fees.  The opponent alleged that academic year 2010.2011 classes started on 15.5.2010.   The said fact is not disputed by complainant.

23.              The application for cancellation  was  made within 12 days  from the commencement of school.  The opponent has to prove that wrongful loss was caused to school due to cancellation of admission.  There is no evidence to show that, both seats remained vacant during whole years.

24.              The documents indicate that complainant paid Rs.35,000/- for fees of Anooshka as one time fees in addition to regular fees.  The documents indicate that complainant paid Rs. 40,500/- towards fees.  The opponent has not justified the amount received towards fees.  The opponent has not justified the amount received towards one time fees.

25.              Considering the fact that, application for cancellation was made after commencement of school, the opponent is entitle to deduct reasonable amount.

26.              The opponent is a trust registered as per Maharashtra Public Trust Act. 1950.  The said institution is conducted by trust.  The law provides that objects of trust are charitable as provided in section 9 of public Trust Act 1950.  The students are beneficiaries of the trust.  The trustees   are under an obligation to protect interest of students.

27.              The opponent trust has to return reasonable amount.  We quantify the amount of refund as 50 % of total amount.  While deciding the quantum, we have considered the outstanding performance of the school and its reputation and recognition.

28.              The opposite party has to refund 50 %  of the total amount i.e. 75,500/-The complainant is thus entitle for  refund of Rs. 37,750/- from opponent.  Considering  the facts of case we do not pass any order regarding cost and compensation.   The amount shall carry interest @ 9 % p.a. in case said amount  is not refunded within three months from the date of order.

29.              In the result, we pass following order.

                                                O R D E R

1. RBT complaint No. 342/2011 is partly allowed.
2. The opponent is directed to pay Rs. 37,775/- (Thirty seven thousand seven hundred seventy five only) to complainant within three  months from the date of order, failing which amount shall carry interest @ 9 % p.a. after six months till payment from the date of receipt of order.  
3. No order as to compensation and cost.
4. Copy of this order be sent to both parties.