Advocate Ketan Parchure for the
Complainant
Advocate Dilip Athavale for the
Opponent
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**-
Per Hon’ble Shri. V. P. Utpat, President
:- JUDGMENT :-
Date – 15th July 2013
This complaint is filed by consumer against School Authorities for deficiency in service u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts are as follows-
[1] Complainant is the resident of Malad (W), Mumbai. Opponent is running School at Hadapsar, Pune. Complainant is working as Vice President, Finance in M/s. Parag Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd. His job is transferable. He is residing alongwith his wife, son and daughter. He was in search of good School for his children. Hence he approached to the Opponent for taking admission in School at Pune. It was assured by the Opponent that the said Institute has branches at Pune, Mumbai, Kolhapur etc. and children can be transferred to any of those schools. He made inquiry about the admission procedure for his children in the month of April 2011. Opponent has supplied Prospectus and Admission Form to the complainant with assurance that the children will get admission if required to Mumbai at their Mumbai School. Relying upon the promise given by the Opponent complainant took admission for his two kids at the Opponent’s school at Pune in 7th standard and 6th standard. He has paid Rs.92,000/- by cheque on 30/4/2011. At that time the admission was not confirmed as school leaving certificate and address proof was not produced by the complainant. Complainant had received transfer order from his employer and he was asked to resume his duty at Mumbai office with immediate effect. Hence complainant approached opponent and requested to transfer his kids to Opponent’s Mumbai School. The opening date of the school was 06/06/2011 and the complainant had completed the formalities on 16/5/2011 i.e. much prior to the opening of the school. However the Opponent did not abide the promise and refuse to transfer the kids of complainant to Mumbai. Hence complainant asked cancellation of the admission. At that time amount of Rs.52,000/- was refunded to him and amount of Rs.40,000/- was retained by the Opponent. Complainant has sustained financial loss and incurred traveling expenses, communication expenses due to the treatment given by the Opponent. Due to the act of the opponent the kids of the complainant could not get admission for one and half month and they have lost their study for that period. Complainant has asked refund of Rs.40,000/- alongwith interest as well as compensation for mental and physical sufferings for himself and his children. The total claim of the complainant is Rs.6,00,000/-.
[2] Opponent resisted the claim by filing written statement. It has denied the contents of the complaint in toto. It is specifically denied that the Opponent gave promise for the admission of children of complainant in any of the branch at Mumbai, Kolhapur etc. It is admitted by the Opponent that complainant paid Rs.92,000/- It is the case of the Opponent that amount of Rs.40,000/- was forfeited being admission fee as that was non refundable as mentioned in the admission form. Rest of the contents as regards physical sufferings, mental harassment and expenses incurred by the complainant are flatly denied by the Opponent. The Opponent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
[3] After considering the documentary evidence, affidavit of both parties, pleadings and written argument of both parties as well as argument of Opponent, following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1 | Whether complainant has proved that opponent has caused deficiency in service ? | In the affirmative |
2 | What order ? | Complaint is partly allowed. |
Reasons
As to the Point Nos. 1 and 2-
It is not in much dispute that complainant has paid Rs.92,000/- to the Opponent for the admission of his two children and out of which Rs.52,000/- were returned to him by the Opponent. It is the case of the Opponent that the said amount was forfeited as per the condition in the admission form as that amount was regarding admission fee. Complainant himself had cancelled the admission hence he is not entitled for refund of the said amount. It is significant to note that complainant approached the opponent in the month of April for the admission of his children. At that time he has not produced school leaving certificate as well as address proof. Unless those documents were produced it cannot be said that process of admission was completed. Complainant has informed the Opponent in the month of May about cancellation of admission. At that time academic year was not started. In such circumstances the objection raised by the opponent for not refunding amount of Rs.40,000/- appears to be illogical. The Opponent has not produced any documentary evidence to show that the process of admission of complainant’s children was completed. Opponent has not produced any document to show that it has right to withheld amount of Rs.40,000/- as per the agreement between the parties.
It is true that there is no iota of evidence before this Forum to show that the Opponent has assured for the transfer of children of complainant to any of the branch of its Institute at Mumbai, Kolhapur etc. But as the admission was got cancelled before completing the process it is not fair on the part of the Opponent to withheld the amount of Rs.40,000/- which is belonging to the complainant. In this regard I held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent. Complainant has asked huge compensation from the Opponent which is exorbitant. After considering the nature of the complaint I held that the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.40,000/- as well as Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation for deficiency in service for mental and physical sufferings. In all complainant is entitled to receive amount of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,000/- towards costs from the Opponent. I answer the points accordingly and pass the following order-
:- ORDER :-
1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that Opponent has caused deficiency in service by withholding amount of fees.
3. Opponent is directed to pay amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
4. Opponent is directed to pay amount of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of complaint.
5. Parties are directed to collect the sets of Hon’ble Member within one month from the date of this order. Else the sets will be destroyed.
Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
Place- Pune
Date – 15/07/2013
