Haryana

StateCommission

A/93/2021

KANYA GURUKUL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RANJEET SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

KARAN NEHRA

27 Jun 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                Date of Institution:16.04.2021

                                                          Date of final hearing: 30.05.2024

                                                     Date of pronouncement: 27.06.2024

 

First Appeal No.93 of 2021

 

The Principal, Kanya Gurukul, through Village: Bachganwan Gamri, P.O.: Dubkheri, District-Kurukshetra, Haryana.       …..Appellant

•  

Ranjeet Singh S/o Sh.Tirlok Singh, R/o Village: Mundakhera, VPO Jyotisar,Tehsil:Thanesar District-Kurukshetra, Haryana.

•  

CORAM:             Mr.Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member

                             Mrs. Manjula Sharma, Member

 

Argued by: -      Mr.Harvinder Singh proxy counsel for Mr.Karan Nehra, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Ranjeet Singh respondent in person.

 

                                                ORDER

NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER: -

          Challenge in this Appeal No.93 of 2021 of appellant/OP has been invited to the legality of impugned order dated 02.03.2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra(In short “District Consumer Commission”) in Complaint No.196 of 2019, vide which complainant’s complaint has been allowed.

2.      Factual matrix:Jaspreet Kaur-complainant’s daughter got admission in 9^th class for academic session 2014-2015 in school of OP/appellant. School Management charged Rs.10,900/- as admission fee, annual charges, monthly dues and registration fee vide receipt No.19516 dated 26.03.2014. It also charged Rs.1500/- as ‘security amount’ which as per plea, was refundable after leaving of school by student. Complainant’s daughter studied till 12^th class and passed out in year 2018 from school. Complainant went at school in August-2018 for receiving security amount of Rs.1500/-; contacted OP and showed receipt, but OP denied to pay same. Complainant went to President of Management, who agreed to pay Rs.300/-, instead of Rs.1500/-. It is pleaded that: OP/appellant has earned money in name of security and their services are deficient as they illegally kept security amount of Rs.1500/-. Complainant got issued legal notice upon OP thereby calling upon to pay Rs.1500/- as security amount, but OP failed to pay same within notice period. On these pleas; complaint has been filed for issuance of directions to OP: to pay security amount of Rs.1500/-; to pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and agony and Rs.5000/- as counsel fee.

3.      Upon notice, OP raised contest and filed written defence.  It is pleaded in preliminary objections that: complaint is not maintainable; complainant has not approached the forum with clean hands and concealed material facts.  Kanya Gurukul-OP/appellant is providing high quality education to girls from rural communities since last 16 years. Kanya Gurukul provides support to many girls from poor families by offering them free concession totaling more than Rs.20.00 lacs per annum. Even complainant is one of beneficiaries of this concession scheme. He was provided concession of Rs.20,400/- for his daughters in session 2016-17 & 2017-18. Complaint has been filed with intention to gain unlawfully without legal cause by manipulating facts thereby attempting to harass OP. Complaint involve complicated and complex question of facts which require elaborate evidence and trial and can be decided only in civil court. There is no deficiency in service of OP. On merits, it is pleaded that security amount is kept first for meeting any unsettled dues left by departing student and balance is refunded to student at the time of leaving school. Under same context; Rs.1500/- was taken as security amount at the time of admission of Jaspreet Kaur daughter of complainant.  It is pleaded as incorrect that: OP has denied payment of security amount of Rs.1500/- to complainant. Ranjit Singh-complainantwas told that Rs.300/-, balance of security amount, after settling pending dues of Jaspreet Kaur will be refunded. He was explained break up of Rs.1200/- which was adjusted against security amount under two major heads i.e.his daughter’s class contribution towards donation to schooland farewell party.  Rs.1000/- was contributed by Jaspreet Kaur as her share in outgoing 12^th class donation to school.A letter was written by students of 12^th class   to OP wherein they requested to deduct Rs.1000/- from security balance of each student.  This letter was signed by students of 12^th class including daughter of complainant and same was shown to Ranjit Singh-complainant in support of deduction of Rs.1000/-. Jaspreet Kaur also agreed and signed that letter at Sr. No. 44. Rs.200/- was deducted in lieu of farewell party contribution. Jaspreet Kaur also took part in farewell party organized for their class but she did not pay her contribution for party expenses to class teacher. After being explained of above deductions; Ranjeet Singh went to school office and demanded full refund of security amount. He was explained politely that these charges have been incurred by her daughter and payable to school, but he used bad language. He urged that: it is his money and school cannot take it, merely because his daughter has signed on application. There is always implicit consent of guardian in transactions related to his ward in school.  Other pleas have been denied and dismissal of complaint has been prayed.

4.      Parties to this lisled their respective evidence (oral as well as, documentary). On analysingit; learned District Consumer Commission-Kurukshetra vide order dated 02.03.2021 has allowed the complaint and directed OP to refund Rs.1500/- security amount to complainant and also to pay him Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental harassment agony and for litigation expenses. Feeling dissatisfied; unfazed and unsuccessful OP has filed instant appeal.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for parties at length and examined record with their able assistance.

6.      Learned counsel for OP-appellant, while urging for acceptance of this appeal, has contended that; impugned order dated 02.03.2021 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission-Kurukshetra is illegal.  Facts have not been properly appreciated. Rs.1,200/- had been rightly and justifiably deducted from security amount of Rs.1500/- concerning complainant’s daughter. Satisfactory explanation in this regard has been pleaded by OP in its written version. It cannot be viewed from any stretch that OP/appellant has unjustly enriched itself with amount of Rs.1200/- deducted from security amount of Rs.1500/-. Complainant had been rightly told that Rs.300/- would be refunded to him. It is urged that there is implied consent of complainant, once his daughter (Jaspreet Kaur) has signed on application meant for donating her share of Rs.1000/- to school management, as an outgoing/departing class 12^th student. Further, it is contended that dispute involved in complaint is foreign to adjudication by consumer forums. Educational Tribunal have now been set up by State Government and such like disputes should have been filed there for adjudication.

7.      Per-Contra: complainant while appearing in person has supported impugned order dated 02.03.2021 by urging that it is outcome of proper appreciation of facts and evidence by District Consumer Commission-Kurukshetra and same does not warrant any interference in this appeal. It is contended that her daughter was ‘minor’ at the time of departing the school after 12^th class,and even if she had signed at Sr. No. 44 on application meant for donating her share of Rs.1000/- from security amount of Rs.1500/-, yet being a minor; her signature does not attire any legal sanctity in absence of express consent of her guardian i.e. complainant. Further, it is contended that learned District Consumer Commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters of alike nature.

8.      Admitted facts are that: complainant’s daughter got admission in 9^th class of OP/appellant’s school in academic session 2014-15 and left school, after passing out 12^th class in year 2018. Admittedly, Rs.1500/- was deposited towards security amount, amongst other dues. Admittedly, after departing from school; complainant being guardian/father of his ward had requested for refund of total security amount of Rs.1500/-, to which, he was explained that: Rs.1200/- had been deducted from security amount of Rs.1500/- and balance of Rs.300/- would be payable to him.

9.      In wake of above facts, it is observed that nature of dispute is amenable to jurisdiction of consumer forum for adjudication. Nowhere dispute centred on above facts has any nexus and corelation with educational activity as its periphery is within the compass and ambit of administrative function of OP/appellant. Consequently, contention for learned counsel for appellant that complainant should have knocked the door of Educational Tribunal for redressal of his dispute, is bereft of credence and same stood repelled. Still further, in the written version filed by OP/appellant; no such objection regarding jurisdiction of consumer forum has been taken at principal stage.

10.    Now adverting to adjudication of integral part of dispute involved in this case.Rs.1500/- was deposited on 26.03.2014 towards security. Ex.C-3 is receipt in this regard. It is specific plea taken in para-No. 1 of complaint that this security amount of Rs.1500/- was refundable.  There is no express denial to this fact by OP/appellant in its written version while replying to corresponding para of complaint. A fact not specifically denied would mean its admission in legal parlance and OP/appellant cannot wriggle out from ramifications flowing from its admission of positive plea taken in compliant that security amount of Rs.1500/- was refundable.  Principal reliance of OP is on document Ex.R-1 which is an application addressed to Principal of OP/appellant by Batch of Class 12^th students (2017-2018) and it is signed by as many as 51 students. Signature of complainant’s daughter appeared at Sr. No. 44 of this application. Phraseology of this application reads as under:-

“With due respect we the students of Class XIIth (2017-2018) wish to state that we are extremely happy to donate our security amount (Rs.1000/- each) to the school for its welfare and development. We have grown up as fine and responsible individuals and we owe it to the school.

We are willingly donating this amount as a gratitude towards our alma mater and the teachers.”

 

11.    Once, this security amount of Rs.1500/- was refundable in nature, then OP/appellant should not have deviated and departed itself through recourse of application Ex.R-1, in order to retain that amount. Palpably, it was a successful attempt on the part of OP/appellant to usurp security amount which was taken from students, including complainant’s daughter, at the time of admission, in total disregard to implication flowing from admitted fact that this amount was refundable. OP/appellant cannot deny to refund security amount of Rs.1500/- to complainant.  OP/appellant should have refunded the amount of Rs.1500/- once it was personally demanded by complainant at first instance and demanded at second instance through legal notice. Instead, complainant has been forced to knock the doors of consumer forum for redressal of his grievance. Deficiency in service of OP/appellant towards complainant is, ex-facie, proved and established. By denying refund of security amount of Rs.1500/- to complainant; OP/appellant has enriched itself at the cost of complainant, which is illegal, arbitrary and unwarranted. OP/appellant has been rightly non-suited by learned District Consumer Commission-Kurukshetra through its order dated 02.03.2021 which carry no fallacy at all, even remotely, at legal pedestal.  Impugned order dated 02.03.2021 passed by learned District Consumer Commission-Kurukshetra is maintained, affirmed and upheld. Present appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.

12.  
13.  

14.    A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

15.    File be consigned to record room.

Date of pronouncement: 27thJune, 2024

 

 

                             Manjula Sharma                            Naresh Katyal                                          Member                                 Judicial Member

Addl. Bench-I                       Addl. Bench-I