Complaint filed on: 23.03.2015

                                                      Disposed on: 05.05.2018

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.540/2015

DATED THIS THE 5^th MAY OF 2018

PRESENT

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

1.       This complaint has been filed by the complainant as against the opposite parties directing to refund jointly and severally Rs.73,000/- along with interest at 15% p.a. for the period from 9.9.2014 until the same is fully and finally paid, to pay the damages of Rs.50,000/- towards the mental agony and undue hardships suffered, to pay cost of this complaint and to grant such other reliefs deem fit and expedient in the circumstances of the case.

2.       The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he was a student in the Opposite Party Institution bearing Registration No.13101008 studying in BBM Course during the academic year 2013-14 and has successfully completed first and second semester, the examination for which was conducted in the month of November 2013 and April 2014 respectively.

3.       The Complainant submits that he has paid a sum of Rs.73,000/- to the Opposite Parties institution by mode of demand draft bearing No.773641 dt.9.9.2014 being the fees for the 3^rd and 4^th semester. He had to discontinue the course for the 2^nd year at Opposite Parties Institution and he has been duly permitted both by the institution and also by the Bangalore University expressing no objection the Complainant to continue his studies in any other university. Opposite Parties Institution also issued transfer certificate and also no due certificate in favour of the Complainant. In the meantime, the Complainant way back in the month of June 2014 has intimated to the Opposite Parties Institution that he would not be continuing his studies for II year program due to personal reasons and also for the reason that he was not comfortable and satisfied with the faculty in the institution, which he did not like to mention in the letter, fearing for undue hardships. He has not attended any classes for the second year programme in the Opposite Parties Institution and that the institution had no objection for the same. The Complainant submits that the college where he is prosecuting his 2^nd year of program required him to submit migration certificate, no due certificate and transfer certificate pursuant to which the Complainant along with his mother approached the Opposite Party requesting for issue of these documents. Although in law, the Opposite Parties are not authorized to demand and collect the course fee for 2^nd year of program to issue these certificates or otherwise in the circumstances, the Opposite Parties took undue advantage of the situation and that they have reinforced undue influence to coerce the Complainant putting his academic career to stake, so as to put forth the demand for payment of the course fee for 2^nd year program and it is only then they would issue these certificates.

4.       The Complainant submits that his mother pleaded several times, requesting not to impose such condition, which turned abortive and fearing for the detriment that is going to be caused to the academic career of her son, that is the Complainant, she was forced to make arrangements and further forced to pay the sum of Rs.73,000/- to the Opposite Parties. This kind of approach from the Opposite Parties is inhuman, let alone being unauthorized and illegal. This kind of approach is deprecated by Courts of Law in various judgments upholding the interest and welfare of the student. The Opposite Parties are not entitled to retain the course fee that has been forcefully obtained from the Complainant towards the second year program either in law or in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the Opposite Parties are liable to refund the same to the Complainant. The Complainant and his mother have visited the Opposite Parties Institution several times thereafter seeking for refund of course fee of Rs.73,000/- against which you have lent deaf ears and continue to withhold the same without any justification either in law or on the facts and circumstances of the case.

5.       The Complainant submits that he has not attended even a single class in the Opposite Parties Institution for the 2^nd year programme but still holding his career for ransom the Opposite Parties have forced him to pay the aforesaid sum of Rs.73,000/-. The Complainant’s mother is working for livelihood to maintain herself and her son, that is, the Complainant and that they are subjected to mental agony and undue financial hardships due to the arbitrary, illegal and unjust act of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant submits that he is entitled to recover from the Opposite Parties, the refund of the course fee of Rs.73,000/- along with interest for the period from 9.9.2014 until it is fully and finally paid to him. The Complainant issued legal notice dt.6.11.2014 by mode of RPAD to the Opposite Parties calling upon them to refund the sum of Rs.73,000/- along with interest at 15% p.a. for the period from 9.9.2014 until fully and finally paid. The Opposite Parties have received and duly acknowledged the said legal notice of the Complainant. The Opposite Parties have replied through their advocate vide letter dt.15.12.2014. The reply of the Opposite Parties does not comprehend any justifications either in law or in the facts, circumstances and probabilities of the case and hence liable to be deprecated at the hands of this Forum as the same are not in the interest of welfare of student. Hence, this complaint has been filed.    

6.       Notice was ordered issue to the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 who did appear and filed the common version denying the allegations made by the Complainant against them.

          7.       The sum and substance of the version filed by the Opposite Parties are that the complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable. The Opposite Party submits that the complaint has been filed with an oblique motive and that too by suppressing concealing and mis-stating the facts. It deserves to be dismissed for this reason as well. The complaint is also liable to be dismissed as no cause of action has arisen in favour of the Complainant and/or against the Opposite Parties for filing of the same. On the contrary, the Complainant is taking undue advantage of the process of law and this Forum, which cannot be permitted. The Opposite Party submits that the Complainant and his mother desirous of getting the Complainant admitted for the course of BBM in the Opposite Party Institution, they had clearly enquired about the Opposite Party Institution, its Rules and Regulation and only after thoroughly understanding the terms and conditions and declaration of the Opposite Party Institution and satisfied with the norms and procedure the Complainant got admitted himself in the Opposite Party Institution for the course of BBM. The Opposite Party submits that he Complainant was aware that at the time of admission, that the Complainant was admitted and chosen overlooking the candidature of several other applicants who were keen to pursue their course in the Opposite Party Institution. It is relatable to mention that the Complainant along with his parent had also given an undertaking by way of declaration and has indemnified himself to the Opposite Party Institution from all claims and liabilities. Hence, the Complainant has no right to raise the claim made in the complaint.

8.       The Opposite Parties submits that the Complainant had also taken up the 1^st and 2^nd semester examination respectively. And for the reasons best known to the Complainant, the Complainant had gone ahead in getting admitted to some other college for the convenience of himself and at the cost and loss of the Opposite Parties Institution. It is more surprising is how the other college admitted the Complainant without the transfer certificate and original documents. The Complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The Opposite Party submits that it is very much pertinent to mention that the Complainant along with his mother has duly signed the application form along with the declaration that after commencement of the programme, if the Complainant discontinues the programme before completion then they would remain liable to pay the full tuition fees, expenses or cost incurred for the remaining “PERIOD OF THE ENTIRE COUSE”, for which the Complainant and his mother had undertaken not to claim any refund whatsoever of any amount paid by the Complainant to the college authorities. Further, the Complainant had also agreed to the Opposite Parties Institution, by way of declaration that the college authority reserves the right to retain all the original certificates of Opposite Parties Institution until the clearance of the dues and fines. Hence, the question of refund of the fee of a sum of Rs.73,000/- does not arise at all.

9.       The Opposite Party submits that inspite of the declaration given by the Complainant, where the Opposite Party is legally entitled and had a lien to retain all the original documents till the Complainant pays the entire course fee, it is very significant to mention that the Opposite Party on humanitarian ground had shown great concern towards the Complainant by returning all the original documents and accepting only a part of the fee i.e., 3^rd and 4^th semester fee, a sum of Rs.73,000/- which includes late fee of Rs.7,300/- instead of the total due fee of Rs.1,31,400/-. The Opposite Party Institution incurring a huge loss for itself and only for the benefit of the student-Complainant had forfeited the fee for the 5^th and 6^th semester i.e. a sum of Rs.65,700/- which the Complainant was due. Whereas, the Complainant instead of showing gratitude and being faithful to the Opposite Party Institution, has made false, baseless and reckless allegation against the Opposite Party Institution and has illegally claimed the fee of Rs.73,000/- along with interest at 15% p.a. and damages of Rs.50,000/-. The Opposite Party submits that it will not be out of context to mention that the Complainant has stooped to such a low level of making false allegations against the faculty of the Opposite Party Institution, that the Complainant should not forget that he has successfully completed his PUC in one of the institution of the Opposite Party. This clearly shows the conduct of the Complainant that he will stoop to any level to make unlawful gains out of the situation.

10.     The Opposite Party submits that Institution is a prestigious institution established in the year 1996, affiliated by the Bangalore University and duly recognized by the All India Council for Technical Education, University Grants Commission (UGC) and accredited by National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC). The Opposite Party Institution carries out the noble work by imparting education in all the fields irrespective of the students by their caste or creed, rich or poor only for the up-liftment and benefit of the society. When the Opposite Party Institution is rendering such a righteous work for the society, the Complainant has not right to defame the reputation of Opposite Party Institution and hence, this Opposite Party Institution requests this Forum to direct the Complainant to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Opposite Party for unnecessarily defaming the reputation of the Opposite Party Institution for no fault at all.   

11.     The Opposite Party submits that it is an education institute molding the future of several lakhs of students in its institution, the Complainant or any other student should not take the education institution for granted (except certified prolonged medical illness), as any educational institution is not a charity institution but it is a temple of learning, as in this above captioned complaint, where there was a necessity the Complainant joined the institution and when he does not require even without intimating the Opposite Party joins another institution. It is pertinent to mention that if the Complainant would not have voluntarily come forward for the admission, this seat would have been allotted to some other candidate for which the student would have received the best education and have completed the course successfully and placed in a very good post. The Complainant has voluntarily withdrawn himself against the will and wish of Institution, inspite of the best education being rendered to the Complainant and thereby the Complainant has totally put the Opposite Party Institution under loss. The Opposite Party begs this forum to take stringent action against the Complainant by dismissing the complaint with exemplary cost and by directing the Complainant to pay the remaining fee of Rs.65,700/- along with the damages of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Opposite Party, as it should be an example to the Complainant or any student that they should not take any educational institution for granted.

12. The Opposite Party submits that it is a settled of law that a consumer can approach the consumer forum only when there is deficiency of services by the Opposite Party. Hence in this case, the question of deficiency of services by the Opposite Party does not arise at all, as the Opposite Party Institution has legally abided to its rules and regulation and declarations which are duly signed by the Complainant and has provided the services to the Complainant and the Complainant has voluntarily withdrawn from the Opposite Party Institution, this fact is clearly admitted by the Complainant that there is no deficiency of services by the Opposite Party as nowhere in the complaint, the Complainant has stated deficiency of services of the Opposite Party Institution. Hence, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as there is no deficiency of services from the Opposite Party and the Complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Act and hence, the said complaint has to be rejected outright on this ground alone. The Opposite Party submits that the Complainant has made all baseless and false allegations against the Opposite Party stating that several times the Complainant’s mother pleaded the Opposite Party not to impose such conditions. The Complainant has stooped to a very low level using his slyness tactics to extort money from the Opposite Party Institution.  The Opposite Party submits that it was the Complainant, who withdrew himself from the Opposite Party Institution, therefore, it is not proper on the part of the Complainant to show finger towards the Opposite Party Institution. Infact the Opposite Party Institution has suffered financially in view of withdrawal of the Complainant unilaterally without any reason. Wherefore, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs and direct the Complainant to pay the balance fee of Rs.65,700/- and damages of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Opposite Party Institution.

          13.     The Complainant to substantiate his case, filed his affidavit evidence and got marked A1 to A10. Smt. Suja Bennet, Principal of the Opposite Party filed her affidavit evidence and got marked Ex-B1 to B7. Both parties filed written arguments. Heard learned counsel for the Complainant and the Opposite Party.

          14.     The points that arise for our consideration are:

          1) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service on the 

                part of the OPs, if so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the

              relief sought for?

          2) What Order?

          10.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1 : Affirmative

Point No.2 : As per the final order for the following

REASONS

          11. POINT NO.1 : We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version filed by the OP. The undisputed facts which reveals from the pleading of the parties goes to show that the Complainant was the student in the Opposite Party Institution studied  in BBM Course during the academic year 2013-14 and has successfully completed first and second semester, the examination for which was conducted in the month of November 2013 and April 2014 respectively. It is also not in dispute that the Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.73,000/- to the Opposite Party Institution (including late fee) by mode of demand draft bearing No.773641 dt.9.9.2014 being the fees for the 3^rd and 4^th semester.  As the Complainant had to discontinued the course for the 2^nd year at Opposite Party Institution and he has been duly permitted both by the institution and also by the Bangalore University expressing no objection, the Complainant to continue his studies in any other university. In this context, the Opposite Party Institution also issued transfer certificate and also no due certificate in favour of the Complainant.

          12.     The litigation starts when the Complainant has withdrawn from the said college to pursue BBM course of 3^rd and 4^th semester as per the reasons in Para-5 in the complaint, but for discontinue, he has sought for the refund of fees paid by him in a sum of Rs.73,000/-, for which the Opposite Party Institution have denied stating that the Complainant and his mother were given undertaking from non-refunding of the amount so far paid in the event of withdrawal.  On this ground, the Opposite Party has denied for refund of the amount of Rs.73,000/-.

          13.     The Complainant to substantiate his case, draw our attention to the documents 1 to 4 filed with memo dt.20.7.2017 wherein document No.1 to 4 read thus;

1. Notification bearing No.D.O.No.1-3/2007 (CPP-II) dt.6.12.2016 issued by the University Grants Commission, New Delhi

2.Public Notice bearing No.F.No.1-3/2007 (CPP-II) dt.23.04.2007 issued by the University Grants Commission, New Delhi

3.Bare Act of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956

4. 2004 NCJ 662 (NC)

Sai Correspondence College

 V/s

Harikrishna. D.

          14.     The Complainant also placed reliance on the 2 unreported decision of the National Commission which are as follows:

1. Revision Petition No.3926/2009

Decided by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, obtained from website: Indian Kanoon.org.doc.

Registrar, Andhra University V/s Janjanam Jagedeesh

2. Revision Petition No.1668/2012

Decided by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, obtained from website: Indian Kanoon.org.doc.

Birla Institute of Technology & Science and others V/s Abhishek Mengi.

15.     Referring to these documents and citations submits that the Complainant has well in advance informed to the Opposite Party for his withdrawal from the said college. Hence, is entitled for 100% refund of the fee paid by him.

16.     Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party submits that since the Complainant himself has voluntarily withdrawn from the said course, hence, he is not entitled for the relief sought for. Further, the Complainant is to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Opposite Party Institution. In this context, he too also placed reliance on the University Grants Commission (UGC) Guidelines and Rules, the decision reported in Vol.III 2009 CPJ 232 A.P.(Aurora’s Degree & P.G.College & Anr. V/s M.Surya Lakshmi Savani) and another decision Vo.I 1999 CPJ 339 H.R. (Aptech Computer Education V/s Ravi Kumar Balhara).

17. Referring the said documents and two decisions submits to dismiss the complaint. First we have to place reliance on the said two decisions cited by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party which are of the Andhra Pradesh State Commission and Haryana State Commission respectively. These decisions are not binding nature on this Forum, in view of the decision cited by the learned counsel for the Complainant which is one of the National Commission.  The Complainant has well within the time informed to the Opposite Party for his withdrawal which was in the month of June 2014. This fact is not specifically denied by the Opposite Party. Now let us see what is the settled proposition of law in the event of withdrawal of the student from the education institutions who did not like to continue. In this view of the matter, we placed reliance on document No.1 produced by the Complainant with memo dt.20.7.2017 wherein the relevant portion is found in 4.2 remittance and refund of fees, wherein Clause-4.2.3 read thus;

If a student chooses to withdraw from the program of study in which he/she is enrolled, the institution concerned shall follow the following four-tier system for the refund of fees remitted by the student.

(Inclusive of course fees and non-tuition fees but exclusive of caution money and security deposit)

4.2.4. In case of (1) in the table above, the HEI concerned shall deduct an amount not more than 10% of the aggregate fees as processing charges from the refundable amount.

4.2.5. Fees shall be refunded by all HEIs to an eligible student within fifteen days from the date of receiving a written application from him/her in this regard.

          18.     If the above clause is strictly construed, 100% refund of fee within 15 days before the formally-notified last date of admission. As we have already stated above that the Complainant way back in the month of June 2014 has intimated to the Opposite Party Institution stating that he would not be continue the studies on 2^nd year programme. When such being the fact the Opposite Party is bound by Clause 4.2-1, 4.2- 3. In this context, we placed reliance on unreported decision cited by the Opposite Party in Revision Petition No.3926/2009 decided by NCDRC in the case of Registrar, Andhra University V/s Janjanam Jagedeesh decided on 6^th July 2010. The relevant portion read thus:

We have perused the photocopy of general instruction filed by the petitioner at Page 28 of the paper book but do not find any such stipulations. Para 6 of the general instructions only states that a student once admitted into a course will get his/her original certificates only after completion of the course. Hence, they are directed to keep sufficient number of photocopies of their certificates with them. This clause does not refer to any condition that fees once paid will not be refunded under any circumstance.

Learned counsel has also referred to the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Bihar School Examination Board V/s Suresh Prasad Sinha (2009) 8 SCC 483 and has tried to persuade us that in view of the said judgment, the University was not rendering any service and, therefore, the respondent was not a consumer. We have noted his argument but we find that the said judgment was delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the context of the conduct of examination only. On the contrary, the University Grants Commission (UGC) which is the Apex body to regulate the activities of various Universities/Colleges as issued guidelines in this regard vide a Public Notice which reads as under:

 It has come to the notice of the University Grants Commission (UGC) that institutions and universities including institutions deemed to be Universities are admitting students to various programmes of the studies long before the actual starting of academic session, collecting full fee from the admitted students, and retaining their schools/institutions leaving certificate in original. The institutions and Universities are also reportedly confiscating the fee paid if a student fails to join by such dates. The commission is of the view that the institutions/universities, by way of retaining the certificate in original, force retention of admitted students which limits the opportunities for the candidates from exercising other options of joining other institutions of their choice. However, it would not be permissible for institutions and universities to retain the school/institution leaving certificate, mark sheet, caste certificate and other documents in original.    

 The Ministry of Human Resource Development and University Grants Commission have considered the issue and decided that the institutions and Universities, in the public interest, shall maintain a waiting list of students/candidates in the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the waid-listed candidate should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- shall be refunded and returned by the institution/University to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. Should be student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable.

The Universities/Institutions are requested to abide by the instructions issued by the UGC. The UGC shall on its own or on receipt of specific complaints from those affected, take all such steps as may be necessary to enforce these directions. Institutions/Universities are also required to convey these instructions to the colleges affiliated to them.

This notice has been reiterated subsequently also.

As per these guidelines which will have overriding effect over the universities own guidelines and keeping in view that the respondent/Complainant in this case, within a week of depositing the fees and the certificates had requested for being withdrawn from the course without attending any class and in view of the UGC guidelines (supra), we are of the view that the petitioners/Opposite Party institute was unfair in retaining the entire fee, even after the student withdrew from their college. Besides, the petitioners have failed to prove that the result and vacancy was not filled up by any other candidate from the waiting list.

Accordingly, we direct the petitioners/Opposite Parties to retain only Rs.1000/- of the fee deposited by the respondent/Complainant and refund the balance amount with 6% interest p.a. This amount should be paid to the respondent/Complainant within a period of two months failing which the petitioners will pay interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of the complaint till its payment. The revision petition, accordingly, is disposed of in the terms above.

Another decision in Revision Petition No.1668/2012 decided by Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of Birla Institute of Technology & Science and others V/s Abhishek Mengi wherein the relevant portion read thus:

          After giving our thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced by the counsel for the appellants and the evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Undisputedly, the Complainant applied for admission to the M.Sc (Tech) General Studies Course being run by the appellants/Opposite Party. It is evident from Annexure A-2 dt.17.1.2009, that the Complainant deposited Rs.1000/-, in the account of the appellants/Opposite Party maintained with the ICICI Bank, Sector-35, Chandigarh, Not only this, the Opposite Party/appellants in its written reply in clear-cut terms stated that the Complainant had been allotted, one of its Centres at BITSAT Centre, C/o University Institute of Engineering & Technology, South Campus, CAD Lab, Punjab University, Sector 25, Chandigarh. It was, in this centre, which was allotted to the Complainant vide Annexure C-3, that the Complainant appeared for the competitive examination, for admission to the course, in question of the appellants. When the test held on 15.5.2009 was cleared by the Complainant, a demand of Rs.225/-, was made by the appellants/Opposite Party, on account of the application form. It is evident from Annexure A-5 dt.17.6.2009, that a sum of Rs.225/- on the demand of the appellants/Opposite Party was deposited by the Complainant, in its account, in ICICI Bank, Sector 35, Chandigarh. Annexure-A-6, is the letter dt.1.7.2008, written by the appellants/Opposite Party to the Complainant at his Chandigarh address, informing him that he was selected for admission to M.Sc (Tech.) General Studies Course at Pilani Campus. He was further directed to pay advance fees of Rs.55,000/-. The Complainant sent the fees, through Bank draft, against which a certificate dt.2.8.2010, Annexure-A-7 was issued by the ICICI Bank, Sector-35-C, Chandigarh. From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that a part of cause of action, arose to the Complainant, within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh. According to Section 11 (c) of the Act, a consumer complaint can be filed at a place, where even a part of cause of action, arose to the Complainant. Since, a part of cause of action, arose to the Complainant, in the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh, the District Forum at Chandigarh, had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The submission of the counsel for the appellants to the effect, that the District Forum at Chandigarh, had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint, therefore, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.     

 In the light of the decision cited supra, we come to the conclusion that the institution/universities by way of retaining the certificate in original, force retention of admitted students which limits the opportunities for the candidates from exercising other options of joining other institutions of their choice. However, it would not be permissible for institutions or universities to retain school/institution leaving certificate, mark sheet, caste certificate and other documents in original. The Ministry of Human Resource Development and University Grants Commission have considered the issue and decided that the institutions and Universities, in the public interest, shall maintain a waiting list of students/candidates in the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the wait-listed candidate should be given admission against the vacant seat. Further, as per these guidelines which will have overriding effect over the universities own guidelines and keeping in view that the Complainant in this case, had requested for being withdrawn from the course without attending any class. In view of the UGC guidelines, we are of the view that the Opposite Party institute was unfair in retaining the entire fee, even after the student withdrew from their institution. Besides, the Opposite Parties have failed to prove that the vacancy was not filled up by any other candidate from the waiting list. In this context, if we direct the Opposite Parties to retain only Rs.1000/- out of the fee deposited by the Complainant and to refund the balance amount with 6% interest p.a. from the date of depositing the said fees till realization, we hope ends of justice would meet sufficiently. The said amount should be paid to the Complainant within a period of two months from this day failing which the Opposite Parties will pay interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of the complaint till its payment. Looking to circumstances of the case, we declined to grant any kind of compensation. But we fix cost of litigation of Rs.1000/-. Accordingly, we answer the Point No.1 in the affirmative. 

          19.     POINT NO.2:In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby allowed. We direct the Opposite Parties to retain only Rs.1000/- out of the fee deposited by the Complainant and refund balance amount of Rs.72,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. to the Complainant. The said amount should be paid to the Complainant within a period of two months failing which the Opposite Parties will pay interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of the complaint till its payment. Cost of litigation is fixed at Rs.1000/-.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open forum on 5^th May 2018).

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Sri.Ankit Grover, who being the complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

Smt.Suja Bennet, Principal of the Opposite Party School who being the Principal of Ops was examined.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of OPs