BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:

HYDERABAD.



F.A.No.794/2006 against C.D.No. 1061/2005, Dist. Forum-III, Hyderabad.



Between:



Ms. Pallak Agarwal, Class 11B,

D/o.Pramod Kumar Agarwal,

Aged about 17 years, Minor,

Occ:Student,

Rep. by her natural father Mr.Pramod Kumar Agarwal,

S/o.Sri M.L.Agarwal , aged 42 years , Occ:Business,

R/o.2-1-113, Tobacco Bazar,

Secunderabad – 500 003 (AP) …Appellant/

Complainant

And



The Principal,

Nasar School, High School Section,

6-2-905, Kushnuma,

Khairatabad,

Hyderabad – 500 004. … Respondent/

Opp.party



Counsel for the appellant : Sri G.Venkataswamy Goud



Counsel for the respondents : M/s. Sri Asadullha Pasha



CORAM : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.D.APPA RAO , PRESIDENT,

SMT M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER

AND

SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER



MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH,

TWO THOUSAND NINE.



Oral Order : (Per Sri Syed Abdullah, Hon ‘ble Member. )

***

The appellant is the complainant in C.D.No. 1061/2005 on the file of District Forum-III, Hyderabad and a complaint was filed against opposite party seeking a direction to refund school fee of Rs.12,300/- and incidental charges of Rs.6,500/- along with interest at 24% p.a., to award compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony , to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint and the said claim was dismissed by directing the opp.party to refund the caution deposit amount of Rs.2000/- paid by the complainant within one month.



Aggrieved by the impugned order this appeal is preferred and the main contention is that the opp.party having promised to refund the tuition fee in case the student unable to adjust with the atmosphere of the school, refusing to refund the tuition fee would amounts to unfair trade practice which attracts definition of deficiency in service.



The facts of the case are that the complainant was admitted in opposite party’s school on 2.6.2005 on payment of Rs. 12,300/- and she was allotted to Class II B bearing admission no. 9061 and at the time of admission it was orally agreed that in case the complainant is unable to adjust with school atmosphere the fee would be refunded. The complainant was not given with any prospectus of school with regard to the rules and regulations of school . The complainant could not adjust with the school atmosphere, so discontinued after attending the school only for 2 days i.e. on 2.6.05 and 3.6.2005 .The complainant’s guardian corresponded with the opp.party seeking refund of the amount but the opp.party failed to respond . A legal notice dt. 22.10.2005 was got issued seeking refund of the fees with interest there on and also compensation for mental agony suffered. As there is no response from the opposite party , the complainant filed the complaint.



The opposite party appeared through advocate before the District Forum but version is not filed and thereby the Dist. Forum proceeded with the hearing and disposal of the matter.



During the enquiry guardian of the complainant filed evidence affidavit and filed Exs.A1 to A14 documents consisting receipt for remittance of Rs.12,300/- towards the tuition fee etc. paid to the opposite party at the time of admission of the complainant, , the correspondence made with the opp.party for refund of fee paid and a copy of reply Ex.A13 given by the opp.party . In the absence of version filed by the opposite party, the District Forum relying on Ex.A13 reply given by opposite party had passed orders on merits holding that the opp.party cannot be attributed with allegation of deficiency in service since the admission was not denied. . The contention that there was unfair trade practice as alleged is also rejected, however ordered to refund caution deposit of Rs.2000/- .



Questioning the legality and propriety of the order the factual aspects are reiterated. The appellant’s strong hold contention is that when the opposite party orally agreed to refund tuition fee in case the student unable to adjust with the school atmosphere and when the student was admitted with understanding it is obligatory for the opposite party to refund the entire amount. Breach of it would amounts to unfair trade practice as well deficiency in service .



In the absence of detailed version of opposite party it is necessary to rely on Ex.A13 reply notice of the opposite party in which it is stated that the school reopened on 13th June and the complainant was admitted since then started attending classes upto 9th July for about one month and as per the prospectus of the school in case any student withdraws from the school for any reason , after the teaching session begins he/she shall not be eligible for any refund. Apart from it the opposite party school is run by Board of Management which has framed rules and regulations as such none of the administrative staff can promise to refund the fees and the administrative member is not empowered to do so , but agreed to refund caution fee collected at the time of admission.



It is undisputed fact that the opposite party school is a private school run by Board of Management and for running the classes the management would obtain necessary permission from the State Educational authorities . The private management schools are not governed by the strict rules applicable to the government schools. The Board of Management will frame its own rules and regulations for admissions and withdrawals . Even after admission the management can issue transfer certificate in case any student is not willing to continue in the said institution. All private schools are run with their own funds and by collection of the fees from the students necessarily, the salaries are paid and meet the expenditure. It is but natural to fix fees and collect from the students for imparting education . In such a case before admitting a student one has to take all precautions and care to see how far the candidate admitted is suitable for that particular school or not . The Government has no control over the private managements except to see that curriculum and syllabus as given by school authorities is followed or not when the schools are recognized to run educational institution. In case there are any lapses or deficiency in service on the part of the private management it can be checked or interfered with. The District Forum had rightly observed that there is no corroborative evidence to support the version of the complainant that the management has orally agreed to refund the fee amount in case the complainant would unable to adjust with the atmosphere of the said institution. The Board of Management who is running the institution have a right to run its institution for imparting education and in connection of it, it may have its own rules and regulations. Every recognized institution will have its own prospectus containing rules and regulations. The complainant’s guardian should have insisted the opposite party for furnishing the prospectus and it is to be inferred that opposite party institution had furnished the same while admitting the student. Though it is stated in the complainant’s version that prospectus was not given which cannot be accepted as correct one . Atleast steps would have been taken to see that the prospectus are summoned and no such attempt was made at all. It can be said that the version of the complainant is only an oath against oath . The oral assertion of complainant cannot be given any weight and consideration. In the light of Ex.A13 reply sent by opposite party and on a reappraisal of the factual aspects and evidence we hold that the appeal is devoid of merits.



In the result appeal is dismissed confirming the order dt. 8.5.2006 in C.D.No.1061/2005 on the file of Dist.Forum-III, Hyderabad as justified . No order as to costs.



PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER