Haryana

Sonipat

CC/139/2015

MEENAKSHI W/O NIRMAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE VEDIC ERA PUBLIC SCHOOL - Opp.Party(s)

R.S. ANTIL

02 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                Complaint No.139 of 2015                                             Instituted on:28.04.2015                                             Date of order:15.12.2015

Meenakshi wife of Nirman, resident of Kingsbury Flats, Sector 61, TDI City Kundli, distt. Sonepat.

     …….Complainant

                          VERSUS

The Vedic Era Public School, Model Town, Sonepat through its Principal.

     ……..Respondent.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

Argued by: Sh. RS Antil Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Ajay garg, Adv. for respondent.

BEFORE-    Nagender Singh, President.

           Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

           D.V. Rathi, Member.

O R D E R

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that her daughter Aaliya aged about four years visited the office of the respondent on 31.12.2014 for getting admission in Class PP-II. Registration form was purchased after payment of Rs.500/-. All the necessary documents were submitted to the respondent.  After interview held on 4.1.2015, the result was declared and the complainant’s daughter was declared eligible for admission.  There was no condition regarding non-refund of admission and tuition fee. The complainant deposited the admission fee and tuition fee on 13.1.2015 in the account of the respondent.  Before the stipulated date i.e. 28.3.2015 the complainant shifted at Kundli due to her husband’s service problem. Due to these circumstances, the complainant was compelled to get admitted her daughter in TDI International Public school, Kundli and the complainant requested the respondent for the refund of admission fee an tuition fee of Rs.21200/-, but the respondent flatly refused to refund the same and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply, the respondent has submitted that the complainant is not the consumer of the respondent and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  The case law titled ass Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Parshad Sinha 2009(iv) CPJ 34 fully supports the case of the respondent.  The complainant after getting herself satisfied has signed the declaration in the registration form of the school wherein it is mentioned that she cannot turn round and ask for the refund of the fees in contravention of specific declaration signed by her and in the registration form it is mentioned that the fees once deposited shall not be refunded.  The complainant has no right to claim refund of the admission fees.  Thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present case since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

3.       We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent since the respondent has refused to refund the admission fee to the complainant. He further submitted that the complainant was entitled to get the refund of the admission and tuition fee from the respondent. In support of his case, he has relied upon the case law titled as Bonnie Anna George Vs. Medical Councel of India and Anr. Writ Petitioin (Civil) no.986 of 2013 decided on 18.9.2014 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

         On the other hand, the respondent has submitted that the complainant is not the consumer of the respondent and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  The case law titled ass Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Parshad Sinha 2009(iv) CPJ 34 fully supports the case of the respondent.  The complainant after getting herself satisfied has signed the declaration in the registration form of the school wherein it is mentioned that she cannot turn round and ask for the refund of the fees in contravention of specific declaration signed by her and in the registration form it is mentioned that the fees once deposited shall not be refunded.  The complainant has no right to claim refund of the admission fees.

5.       After hearing both the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant material available on the case file very carefully, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to get the refund of admission or tuition fee from the complainant.

         The law on which the complainant is relying upon, is not applicable to the case in hand as the facts and circumstances of the present complaint is altogether are different.  In the cited case i.e. Writ Petition no.986 of 2013 titled as Bonnie Anna George Vs. Medical Council of India and Anr., the petitioner filed the writ petition with the prayer for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit her to shift her PG Course from MD Pathology to MD General Medicine in the available vacant seat under the NRI quota within the college.

         But in the case in hand, the complainant’s daughter after interview was found eligible for PP-II class and the admission fee and tuition fee was deposited by  the complainant with her free will after signing the registration form, wherein it is specifically mentioned that fees once deposited shall not be refunded and this includes tuition and admission fee.  So, from the pleadings of the complaint, it is gathered that the complainant has sought the relief for the refund of admission and tuition fee from the respondent. 

          But the complainant is not entitled to get the above said relief from this Forum against the respondent keeping in view the order dated 8.4.2013 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula vide which the appeal no.123 of 2013, instituted on 19.2.2013, decided on 8.4.2013 titled as Bharat Institute of Technology, Sonepat Versus Mayank Sharma has been accepted and the complaint has been dismissed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula while relying on the case cited as Bihar School Examination Board Versus Suresh Prasad Sinha IV (2009) CPJ 34 and M.D.U. Rohtak Versus Surjeet Kaur, 2010 CTJ 985(Supreme Court).

          Further the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula in the order dated 8.4.2013 has mentioned which is reproduced below:-

          “In a recent judgment in Case P.T. Koshy & Anr. Versus Ellen Charitable Trust & others cited as 2012(3) CPC 615(S.C.), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:

          “In view of the judgment of this Court in M.D.U. Rohtak Versus Surjeet  Kaur, 2010(11) SCC  page 159(2010(2) CPC 696(S.C.) wherein this court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity.  Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission fees etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency of service.  Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

           The Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula has held in the order dated 8.4.2013 that this case is fully covered by the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited above.  Thus, the complainant does not fall within the definition of Consumer and therefore, the appellant-respondents cannot be termed as service provider.

          So, keeping in view the above circumstances, this Forum has no power to override the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula and since the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer and the respondent cannot be termed as service provider, this Forum has no other option except to dismiss the present complaint of the complainant.  We order accordingly. Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

Announced: 15.12.2015