DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 30/2017
Date of Institution : 08.03.2017
Date of Decision : 09.02.2018
Baneet Kumar son of Rajinder Kumar R/o House No. 1808, Gobind Colony, Street 5-B, Barnala-148101 (Punjab).
…Complainant
Versus
Y.S. School, New Bus Stand Road, Barnala through its Head/ Principal.
…Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. J.K. Kapil counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Varinder Kumar Goyal counsel for opposite party.
Quorum.-
1. Shri Sukhpal Singh Gill : President.
2. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SUKHPAL SINGH GILL):
The complainant namely Baneet Kumar son of Rajinder Kumar has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act against Y.S. School, Barnala opposite party.
2. The brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant had got admitted her daughter Harshita in KG Class in opposite party school who have received Rs. 10,350/- on account of Annual charges Rs. 8,000/-, tuition fee of Rs. 1,650/- and conveyance charges of Rs. 700/- on 28.03.2015. It is further submitted that after admission complainant came to know that the staff employed in opposite party school was not qualified and not getting salary as per CBSE norms.
3. It is further submitted that complainant immediately started visiting opposite party school many times for issuance of transfer certificate which was issued finally before the start of classes in first week of April 2015 for academic session 2015-16, so the complainant's daughter Harshita did not attend classes even for a day. On the basis of transfer certificate complainant got her daughter admitted in another school affiliated with CBSE and deposited all fee and funds afresh with that school. Thereafter, the complainant requested the opposite party for refund of fee paid by him and opposite party assured complainant to refund it after taking approval from the management of the school. The complainant also written letters dated 21.4.2015 and 24.6.2015 for refund of fee and a legal notice dated 31.1.2016 was also sent but to no effect. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) The opposite party may be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 10,350/- on account of fee paid by the complainant to the opposite party.
2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment.
3) To pay Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice of this complaint, opposite party filed written version taking objections on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant has concealed material facts. As per the provisions of CBSE in case a student leaves the school for such compulsion as transfer of parents or for health reason or in case of death of the student before completion of the session, prorata return of quarterly/term/annual fee should be made (as per CBSE affiliation Bye law page 17, 11 (fees of Chapter II). The complainant filed the complaint with malafide intention just to harass the opposite party.
5. On merits, it is submitted that complainant admitted his ward in Nursery class with the opposite party who passed that class from the opposite party in the year 2014. During this period the complainant never submitted nor approached any school authority in regard of any complaint of school infrastructure, teacher, study or any facilities provided by the school authorities. It is further submitted that after the result of the ward of the complainant, complainant got the child admitted to the next higher class K.G. On 28th March 2015 and paid the charges/fees of the school as per provisions and norms. The complainant submitted an application with the opposite party on 4.4.2015 for school leaving certificate which was issued on 6.4.2015. So, complainant has no right to attend that his daughter did not attend the classes even for a day. The transfer certificate was issued on the request of the complainant so he has no right to claim the refund of fee. They have also denied other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
6. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of application dated 4.4.2015 Ex.C-2, copy of fee receipt Ex.C-3, copy of consignment memo Ex.C-4, copy of letter dated 24.6.2015 Ex.C-5, copy of letter dated 21.4.2015 Ex.C-6, copy of legal notice Ex.C-7, copy of postal receipt Ex.C-8, copy of AD Ex.C-9 and closed their evidence.
7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Kusam Sharma Ex.OP-1, copy of school leaving certificate Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Written arguments also filed by both the parties.
9. After perusing all the record on the file we are of the opinion that before going to the merits of the case firstly we meet the main objection of the opposite party that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. To support this objection the opposite party relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled PT Koshy and others Versus Ellen Charitable Trust and others 2012 (3) CPC-615 (SC).
10. We also perused this judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in this judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court held that matter relating to admission fee in a statutory function of educational institution and matter not covered under “service” under C.P. Act, so complaint under C.P. Act not maintainable. It is also 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 and such matter cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Same view has also been taken by our own Hon'ble Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh in case titled Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa College and others Versus Manpreet Singh reported in 2015 (3) CLT-419.
12. In view of the above mentioned citations of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and our own Hon'ble Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh, without going to the merits of the case, present complaint is dismissed being not maintainable. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
9th Day of February 2018
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Vandna Sidhu) Member
