Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 14
Instituted on : 08.01.2019.
Decided on : 22.03.2021.
Ankit s/o Sh. Ram Naresh minor age 17 years R/o H.No.11/21, Surya Nagar, Gohana Road, Rohtak through his father and natural guardian Sh. Ram Naresh Age 49 years.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
The Managing Director, Scholar Rosary Sr. Sec. School, 6km stone Village Bohar, Sonipat Road, Rohtak-124001.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
Ms. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Deepak Chahal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Deepak Sethi, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant got his son admitted in the opposite party’s school in class 11th Medical with student ID SHS 3941 on dated 20.04.2017. The complainant had deposited Rs.55000/- vide receipt No./Bill No.10477 dated 20.04.2017. After taking the classes, the son of complainant realized that the method of teaching was not upto the mark as assured by the opposite party at the time of taking admission. The complainant reported verbally to the opposite party’s officials but they failed to do anything, ultimately being unsatisfied, the complainant’s son left the school on dated 20.06.2017. Opposite party released the school leaving certificate on dated 29.06.2017. After that complainant requested the opposite party for refund of balance fee after deducting the proportionate fee of 3 months. Opposite party assured to refund the same within 7 days but they refunded the amount of Rs.13950/- only on 13.09.2017 through cheque no.000538. Complainant requested the opposite party many times to refund the balance amount/fee but the opposite party refused to pay any amount. Complainant also served a legal notice through his counsel to the opposite party on dated 22.10.2018 but not received any reply from the opposite party. The act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to refund the remaining amount alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. and also to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that the allegation of complainant that the method of teaching was not upto the mark as assured by the respondent is denied. In fact the opposite party is having well qualified teaching staff. It is correct that the son of complainant left the school on 20.06.2017. The son of complainant left the school at his own due to the reason best known to him. The opposite party issued school leaving certificate as asked by the complainant. The opposite party has refunded the amount to the complainant as per rules and regulations to which he was entitled. It is submitted that out of Rs.55000/- an amount of Rs.22000/- as admission charges, Rs,8500/- as annual charges, Rs.22500/- as tuition fee and Rs.2150/- as transport fee. It is submitted that admission charges and annual charges are non refundable. The opposite party has already released the amount as per rules to which he was entitled. Complainant is not entitled for any more amount. There is no balance towards the opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.CW1 to Ex.CW5 and has closed his evidence on dated 18.10.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/1 and documents Ex.R1 to R7 and has closed his evidence on dated 11.01.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case it is not disputed that son of the complainant namely Ankit got admission in the opposite party’s school in class 11th Medical with student ID SHS 3941 on dated 20.04.2017. The complainant had deposited Rs.55000/- vide receipt No./Bill No.10477 dated 20.04.2017, which is placed on record as Ex.CW1. The contention of ld. Counsel for the complainant is that after taking the classes, the son of complainant realized that the method of teaching was not upto the mark as assured by the opposite party at the time of taking admission. The complainant reported verbally to the opposite party’s officials but they failed to do anything and being unsatisfied, the complainant’s son left the school on dated 20.06.2017. Complainant requested the opposite party to refund of balance fee after deducting the proportionate fee of 3 months. But the opposite parties have only refunded the amount of Rs.13950/- and has withheld the remaining amount, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. It is further contented that if there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise and has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital Vs. Bhupesh Khurana & Others decided on 13.02.2009. On the other hand, contention of ld. Counsel for the opposite party is that the opposite party has already released the amount as per rules to which he was entitled. Complainant is not entitled for any more amount and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
6. As per the documents placed on record, it is observed that complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.55000/- under various heads i.e. Rs.22000/- on account of Admission charges, Rs.8500/- as Annual Charges, Rs.125/- for Almnac, Rs.22500/- for tuition fees, Rs.225/- for PTC circle, Rs.2150/- for transport fee. The tuition fee and other charges were for three months. As the son of complainant has studied in the school of opposite party for 3 months, hence he is not entitled for the tuition fee, PTC circle and transport fee. But the admission charges and annual charges(total Rs.30500/-) were charged for whole of the year, hence it should be refunded after deducting the proportionate amount for three months i.e. Rs.7625/- and the remaining amount of Rs.30500 less Rs.7625/- i.e. Rs.22875/- was to be refunded by the opposite party but the opposite party has only refunded an amount of Rs.13950/-. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and the opposite party is liable to pay the remaining amount to the complainant. The law cited above by ld. Counsel for the complainant is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.8925/-(remaining amount Rs.22875/- less Rs.13950/-already paid) i.e.(Rupees eight thousand nine hundred and twenty five only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from dated 21.06.2017 till its realization to the complainant. Opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
22.03.2021.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
