IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 16th day of December, 2019
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
C C No. 73/2017 (filed on 16/03/2017)
Petitioners : (1) Abinesh Sadasivan,
S/o. Sadasivan,
Narakaparambil House,
Kurichy, Changanacherry.
(2) Surya Abhinesh,
Represented by next friend
Abinesh Sadasivan,
Narakaparambil House,
Kurichy, Changanacherry.
(Adv. K.A. Bhadran)
Vs.
Opposite Party : (1) The Rajas International School,
S. Puram P.O. Kurichy - 686 532.
(2) F.A. Joy Raja,
Director,
The Rajas International School,
S. Puram P.O. Kurichy – 686532.
(Adv. Shaji Varghese)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The nutshell of the complaint is as follows:
The first complainant is the father of the second complainant who is minor. The second complainant is studying in VIIth standard in the Clemis School The second complainant was a student of the Rajas international school from Vth standard onwards. At the time of the admission the first opposite party assured that the school was providing special classes for dance, music, lawn tennis, swimming and horse riding as extracurricular activities under the guidance of qualified teachers. The opposite parties made the complainant believe that the school was at par with international standards in terms of education, safety and character development of the child. Believing the words of the opposite parties the first complainant took admission for the second complainant. The tuition fee was inclusive of the charge for extracurricular activities . The swimming pool of the school was not properly maintained and one of the tiles of the swimming pool was broken posing serious threat to the life and safety of the students. The same was not repaired even after repeated complaints from parents and students. On 18-11- 2015 while the second complainant was having swimming classes as part of the curriculum his right foot hit on the broken tile and was seriously injured. The second complainant was taken to the St.Thomas Hospital Chethippuzha and the wound was sutured. The second complainant was under complete bed rest for two weeks. The second complainant was unable to attend his class and play his favourite sports during that period. The first complainant has spent Rs. 10,000/- for treatment expenses. The first complainant is working as technical lead at Bangalore and due to the injury caused to his son the first complainant was forced to take leave without pay for two weeks. The school had arranged an excursion to Ootty on 30-11-2015 and the second complainant was unable to join his friends and that caused mental agony to him and the opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- for the same. The first complainant incurred a loss of Rs. 10,000/- on account of leave taken and the opposite party is liable to compensate for the mental agony caused to the complainants. The opposite party failed to carry out the repair of the swimming pool after the repeated requests . The opposite party failed to take care which they should have taken. This amounts to deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party. The opposite parties are liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- for the mental agony caused to the first complainant for the serious injury sustained to his son. Hence the complaint is filed.
On receiving the notice from this forum the opposite parties appeared before the forum and filed joint version as follows:-
The second complainant was a student in the first respondent school. He has joined in the school as a 5th standard student. Tuition fee for class room studies and for extracurricular studies are separate. Separate fees is necessary to be paid , which varies according to the different activities selected by the student. The second petitioner never had paid fees for extracurricular activities while he was studying in the first respondent school . The opposite parties denied the allegations that the swimming pool was not properly maintained and one of the tiles in the swimming was broken. The second complainant had not sustained any injury during the swimming classes. The second petitioner was hyper active in his nature and activities which caused several problems to the school. He was very rude to the co students and the boarding mates. On 18-11-2015 at 10.30 am at the time of interval the second complainant attempted to climb the compound wall of the school and sustained minor injuries on his leg. Immediately he was brought to the St. Thomas hospital Chethippuzha by the opposite parties and had given specialized better treatment. Since injuries were minor he was discharged on the same day itself. All the hospital charges and travelling expenses were met by the school authorities. Respondents had given reasonable and sufficient treatment to the second petitioner. All these incidents including the accident happened to the 2nd petitioner and the treatment given to him had been informed to the first petitioner and he was fully satisfied for the treatment and care given to his son. The school authorities had provided special class arrangements to the second petitioner for compensatory the regular classes which he had lost. The school authorities had arranged sightseeing trip to Ootty for its students and it was nearly after four weeks of alleged incident. The reason for non joining in the trip is only known to the second petitioner. The second petitioner would never register his name for participating in the tour. Before joining the school the second petitioner was a student of AKM Public School, Changanassery, where he joined on 27-06-12 as a 3 rd standard student. Since he was problematic in the said school and the previous schools, he was relieved from there on a bilateral understanding and terms of compromise after completion of the 4th standard considering his future. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Injuries caused to the second petitioner is not due to the wilful negligence or carelessness of the respondents. The petitioners are not consumers under the consumer protection act and not entitled for any compensation as prayed.
The first complainant who is the father of the second complainant was examined as Pw1 and Exhibits A1 to A15 were marked. Dimple Ramakrishanan who is the senior assistant of the first respondent school was examined as Dw1. No documentary evidence is produced by the opposite parties.
On the perusal of complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to frame following points for consideration.
Points.
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
2. .Whether there is any deficiency from the part of the opposite parties?
3. .Reliefs and costs.
Point No. 1.
The opposite parties contented that the complainants are not consumers under the consumer protection act. The complaint is filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service from the opposite parties. It is an admitted fact that the second complainant is a student of the first opposite party school. The opposite party admits that they have levied fees from the complainants. Exhibits A11 series are the receipts issued by the first opposite party to the complainant for termly tuition fee, mess fee and other fees charged by them. Exhibit A12 series are the requisition for the payment of fees issued by the first opposite party to the first complainant.
In BhupeshKhurana and others V/s. Vishwa Budha Parishad, the Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission held that fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by educational institutions. Any student becomes a consumer when he attends an educational institution and hires the services of that institution upon payment of fees for attending classes and writing examinations. He becomes a consumer when that fee is accepted from him by the educational institute concerned. Many Five stars schools &and colleges are mushrooming day by day advertising for valued education and facilities and charging the students with high fees. In many such cases, which have come before the Hon’ble National Commission, the apex consumer court has clearly held that providing education is a service and has compensated the aggrieved consumer.
The definition of the term ‘consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In terms of this provision, for the relationship of consumer and service provider to exists between the Complainants, on the one hand and the School on the other, there has to be a service rendered by School to the Complainant Student for a consideration paid or to be paid.
We have no doubt that the school providing service for consideration of the fees charged to the school student becomes service provider to the school student concerned who must be considered as consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act in the fact and circumstances of this case. Hence the point number 1 is answered accordingly.
Point No. 2
As discussed above the complainants are the consumers of the opposite parties. It is admitted that second complainant was a student of the first opposite party school from the academic year 2014 to 2016. Exhibit A6 transfer certificate from the first opposite party school proves that the second complainant got admission in the said school on 04-04- 2014 in the 4 th standard and relieved from the school on 11-04-2016. It is further admitted by the opposite party that the second complainant had sustained injuries on his leg on 18-11-2015 at 10.30 am. The specific case of the complainant is that the second complainant sustained injury while he was attending the swimming class. On the other hand the opposite party contented that the second complainant is hyper active and he sustained minor injury while he was trying to climb upon the compound wall of the school during the juice break time. Though the opposite party contented in the version that the second complainant is a hyper active and problematic student his general conduct is recorded as good in exhibits A4,A5 and exhibit A6. More over the DW1 deposed before the forum that the second complainant is not hyper active in nature.
In S. Somasunderam Vs. The Correspondent, Sri.Chakravarthy International Matriculation Academy (C.P.J.2002 -1-5) Honble National Commission held that when a school admit the child it undertakes to look after the safety of the child during the school hours. In the said case the undertaking held, was clearly breached as school had not maintained the proper toilet and sanitary facilities in the school held as deficiency in service. Loss or injury is not only suffered by the child but also its parents as guardians of the child entrusting the care and custody to the school for consideration of fees payable to the School.
The hospital records of the second complainant is produced and marked as Exhibit A14 series. Exhibit A2) is the certificate issued by the Casualty medical officer of the St.Thomas Hospital chethippuazha. On perusal of exhibit A14(b) we can see that the alleged history of the accident is recorded as injury to 2 nd and 3 rd toe of the (r) foot by swimming pool. Admittedly after the incident the second complainant had been brought to the hospital by the DW1 and other officials of the school authorities. The opposite party has no case that the alleged history was told by the relatives of child or the 1st complainant. Therefore we are of the opinion that the second complainant had sustained the injury while he was swimming. The school had failed to take care of the child at the time of the incident. The school is answerable for the failure on its part to take precautions to prevent the incident and mental anguish to the parents of the child. The above said act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service.
Point No. 3
Exhibits A3 proves that complainant has spent Rs. 2077/- for treatment. Though the first complainant deposed that he had incurred a loss of Rs. 10000/- on account of taking the leave on loss of pay he did not adduce any evidence to corroborate the same. We are in the opinion that the complainants have suffered much mental agony and sufferings due to the deficiency in service by the opposite party. We are of the opinion that allowing Rs. 20000/- as compensation will meet the justice.
In this circumstance we allow the complaint and pass the following order.
- Opposite party 1 to 2 are herby directed to pay Rs. 2077/- (Rupees Two thousand and seventy seven only) to the complainant as the treatment expenses incurred by them.
- The opposite parties are also directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 20000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only)to the complainant.
The Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Order. If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 9% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 16th day of December, 2019.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Witness from the side of complainant
Pw1 : K.R. Sadasivan
Exhibits from the side of complainant
A1 : Copy of Advocate notice issued to opposite party
A2 : Medical certificate issued by St. Thomas hospital, Chethipuzha
A3 : Cash bill issued by St. Thomas Hospital, Chethipuzha.
A4 : Course and conduct certificate issued by opposite party
A5 : Copy of Transfer certificate issued by AKM public School,
Morkulangara.
A6 : Copy of transfer certificate issued by Rajas International School
A7 : A photo showing the injury
A8 : A photo of broken tile in swimming pool
A9 : Copy of train ticket of the 1st complainant
A10 : The brochure of Rajas International school
A11 : Series of receipt for payment of school fee issued by Rajas
International School (7 nos.)
A12 : Series of requisition of payment by Rajas International School (2 nos.)
A13 : Copy of leave certificate of the 1st complainant
A14 : Series of certificate and treatment records issued by St. Thomas Hospital(5 nos.)
A15: Certificate produced by Abhinesh Sadasivan
Sworn statement of opposite party
Dw1 : Dimple Ramakrishnan
By Order
Senior Superintendent
