SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT

                Complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking to get an order directing opposite party to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, financial loss and hardship caused to the complainant alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. 

The facts in brief of the complaint are that the OP is the principal of the educational institution.  The complaint’s daughter obtained  admission in the said institution for plus two course by paying admission fee, tuition fee and PTA fund.  The admission for plus two course is conducted on the basis of the norms introduced by the government by name “Ekajalakam”.  The interview for admission scheduled on different terms.  1^st they publish a 1^st list and the students who are include in the said list should enter admission in the respective schools and thereafter they publish the second list and during that time the students in the said list also should take admission in the respective schools as per that list.  If any students obtained admission as per first list got a more convenient and more preferable course.  In the second list the said student can file transfer application in the first school to the school in the second list and the authority of the first school should process the said transfer application  as soon as possible.  Since there is vacancy in the MM Higher Secondary School, New Mahe which is near to the house of the complainant she had made a transfer application and for that purpose she went to Vadamkkumbad Higher Secondary School on 22/06/2018 and the OP insulted the complainant and since the OP failed to place the transfer application on time, the complainant had to seek admission on management quota by paying management fees and so on the part of OP1there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service for which the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the OP.

            After receiving notice OP entered appearance and filed written version through counsel.  It is contended that the complainant is not a consumer and the above complaint will not come under the consumer Protection Act.  The OP admits that he is the principal of Vadakkumbad Higher Secondary school from 2018 till date and is the Head of the school.  As per the govt. notification, the last date for giving transfer application was 25/06/2018.  The complainant and her daughter had given transfer application to the Vadammumbad Higher Secondary School only on 26/06/2018.  Even though the date for transfer application was already expired, considering the future of the student, the OP sent  mail to the ICT cell on 26/06/2018.  Before waiting for the reply from the ICT Cell, the complainant obtained TC from Vadakkumbad Higher Secondary school and on 06/07/2018 she recollected the admission fee of Rs.1,800/- also without making any complaint.  More than that since the single window is an online process, the applicant herself can make any alterations in their application of their own through online.  The complainant has no necessity to approach the OP for school transfer.  So the complainant could not blame the OP for the same.  OP contended that there is no deficiency in service on his part and prays for the dismissal of complaint.

            The complainant was examined as Pw1 and marked Ext.A1 to A7.  She was subjected to cross-examination for the OP.  OP filed his chief-affidavit and was examined as Dw1.  Documents Ext.B1 to B4 were marked. Dw1 was also cross-examined for the complainant.  After that the learned counsel of both parties filed their written argument note.

            The 1^st plea raised by the OP is that complainant is not a consumer of OP as he has not received any consideration from the complainant.  With regard to 1^st plea, it is a fact that OP was impleaded as  a party in this case in the capacity of principal of the educational institution where the complainant’s daughter Ruba Rukhiya got admission for plus two course.  It is also a fact that complainant has remitted admission fee of Rs.1,800/- for her daughter Ruba Rukhiya in the school where OP was working as principal.  Considering the said facts, complainant as the parent of the minor student, comes under the definition of consumer.

            The complainant’s case is that since there is vacancy in the M M Higher Secondary School, which is near to the house of the complainant she had made a transfer application and for that purpose she with the daughter went  to Vadakkumbad Higher Secondary School on 22/06/2018, and given transfer application to the OP, then OP insulted the complainant and her daughter and also failed to place the transfer application on time,  So the complainant had to seek admission in the MMHS in Management quota by paying Rs.30,000/- as management fees.  Complainant alleged that the complainant sustained such financial loss and mental agony due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of OP.

            On the other hand OP contended that the complainant along with her daughter went to the OP for giving transfer application on 22/06/2018, the OP abused them in a flimsy language etc. are not correct.  OP produced Ext.B1 attendance register shows that the OP was on leave on that particular day.  Further to discard complainant’s averment that she had given transfer application to MM Higher secondary school on 25/06/2018, OP has produced Ext.B2 school combination transfer copy.  On verifying Ext.B2 it is seen that the complainant’s daughter had not applied for transfer on 25/06/2018 as alleged by complainant.  According to complainant as Ext.B2 is photocopy, it cannot be accepted.  Here if complainant has given transfer application on 25/06/2018, for proving her averments, she could have summoned the original of Ext.B2 from the school of OP.  Further OP submitted Ext.B4 email copy to substantiate his contention that he had sent mail to the ICT cell on 26/06/2018 itself.  OP further contended that before waiting for the reply from the ICT cell, she obtained TC from Vadammumbad HS School and on 06/07/2018 she had recollected the admission fee of Rs.1,800 also without making any complaint.  In this case complainant alleged that due to the deficiency in service on the part of OP she had to pay Rs.30,000/- as management fee in MMHS School.  For proving the said contention complainant has not submitted any evidence.  She has furnished only A3 to A5 ie she had paid only Rs.600/- to MMHSS, for getting admission.

            Hence considering the entire evidence (oral and documentary) we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to substantiate the averments as alleged in the complaint.  Hence the complaint is dismissed.  N o order as to cost.

Exts.

A1- Receipt dated 09/06/2018

A2- Receipt dated 10/05/2018

A3- Receipt dated 30/06/2018(Rs.400/-)

A4- Receipt dated 30/06/2018(Rs.100/-)

A5- Membership slip dated 30/06/2018

A6- Lawyer notice

A7- Reply notice

B1- Attested copy of attendance register (verified with original)

B2- Copy of school combination transfer (subject proof)

 B3- Copy of single window 2^nd allotment (subject proof)

B4- Copy of  e-mail(subject to proof)

Pw1-Complainant

Dw1-OP

      Sd/                                                                          Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                   MEMBER                                                   MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

/Forward by order/

Assistant Registrar