Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/400/2016

Anurag Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vivek High School - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

15 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	400 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	1.6.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	15.12.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Anurag Sharma son of Sh. V.B. Sharma resident of H. No.763, Sector 8, Panchkula.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

Vivek High School, Sector 38-B, Chandigarh through its principal.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

BEFORE:  

 

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                  PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA          MEMBER

 

For Complainant-	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Adv.
For OP No	:	Sh. Inderjit Kaushal, Adv.

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant approached the OP school for admission of his daughter in the nursery class and his daughter succeeded   in the draw of lots.  The complainant as per instructions of the OP paid  Rs.63,000/- through cheque towards admission and he was issued admission slip dated 23.1.2016. It is pleaded that in the meantime the complainant who is in a pvt. Transferable job  was transferred.  Accordingly informed the OP and requested it to refund the amount but it refused to do so and instead of refunding the whole amount only refunded Rs.33,000/- and took signature of the complainant on a blank paper, which were signed under protest.   It is further pleaded that  since the session was to commence from April 2016 so no class was attended by the daughter of the complainant.  It is alleged that despite request the OP did not refund the  remaining amount to the complainant.         Even the OP has given admission to another student against the vacant seat of the complainants daughter’s. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite  Party, seeking its version of the case
3.      The OP in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that as per the rules and regulations of the OP the administrative/admission charges are non-refundable on account of fact that the school had completed the procedure by admitting the ward of complainant by incurring expenditure/services. The school had refunded the development charges and consolidated fee charged from the complainant as  the withdrawal was before starting of session. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant himself on 4.3.2016 had submitted an application for withdrawal of ward after the admission was granted by school due to his personal reasons.   It is further asserted that it is categorically written in the fee book itself that the admission/administrative charges are non-refundable in case of withdrawal of child from the school. The complainant being an educated person and after going through the terms and condition of fee etc. came forward to deposit the fee and other charges for the admission of his ward in class nursery.  Thus there is no deficiency on the part of the OP. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.           Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.
5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.
6.       Admittedly the complainant approached the OP school for admission of his daughter in the nursery class and paid Rs.63,000/- towards admission fee but due to transfer of the complainant he withdrew his request for the admission of her daughter and so requested the OP to refund the admission fee. The case of the complainant is that instead  of refunding the whole amount OP, refunded Rs.33,000/- only and retained the remaining huge amount of Rs.30,000/- with itself in the name of non-refundable administrative charges.  The OP in its reply has maintained that as per Rules and Regulations the administrative/admission charges are non-refundable. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on its part.
7.      After going through the reply filed by the OP as well as the new admission slip placed on record, it is evident that the OP is a private institute imparting education. Pertinently, in the present case the complainant surrendered the seat of her daughter in advance before the beginning of the new session  and it is also matter of fact that the said seat was occupied by some other child after paying full admission fee as charged by the OP school.  Therefore, surrender of seat by the complainant’s daughter before the beginning of the session did not cause any kind of financial loss to the OP. In our view by admitting other child with full fee and at the same time retaining the complainant’s remaining amount is itself unfair trade practice on the  part of the OP by charging administrative/admission charges twice for one and same seat.   The reliance put on the admission slip mentioning non-refund of the fee cannot be accepted as the purpose to retain the administrative charges with OP is neither defined nor there are any detail of this expenditure on the record. Thus, this practice of the OP school being arbitrary/unilateral and unreasonable in nature is held to be illegal.  As such, in our opinion the act of the OP for retaining huge amount of Rs.30,000/- without any justification or cogent reasoning is clearly unfair trade practice on its part.  So far as the question of the judgments placed on record by the OP is concerned the facts and circumstances of the present case are not similar to the facts and circumstances of the cases mentioned by the OP.   Thus, the said judgments are of no help to the OP.  Pertinently, the OP being a private institution imparting education has not been incorporated as a university or education institution under the State of Government of India and hence is not governed under the Rules laid down by the  Ministry of Human Resource  Development. If OP had been set up under the statute, the  Rules and Regulations  for its governance as well as refund of the fee would have been as per statutory provisions and in that eventuality we would not have passed any order in contravention of statutory condition. However, the OP is only a private profit making organization whatever be its size. Thus, its contention of refusal for refund of admission fee on the basis of it being non refundable, is not sustainable especially when the daughter of the complainant did not attend the school rather surrender the seat prior to the beginning of the new Session. Just because of prior intimation by the complainant, OP school was able to fill up the surrendered seat. Had the daughter of the complainant left the seat after the beginning of the session and on account of that the OP would not be able to fill up the seat, then the OP had a good case. But in the instant case as discussed above,   the OP duly filled up the seat surrendered by the daughter of the complainant. Thus, the OP cannot take double benefit for one and same seat by charging fee from the complainant as also from other student who was allocated the seat subsequently. Hence, there is unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
8.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party is directed  to:-

 

a)     To refund Rs.30,000/- being the   remaining admission fee to the    complainant.

 

b)     To make payment of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for     causing mental and physical      harassment.

 

 

c)     To make payment of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

 

 

       The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Party, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr. No.[a] shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization & the amount at [b] shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

 

          The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

15.12.2016  

 

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER