BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM.
KAMRUP
C.C.No.1/2015
Present: I) Shri A.F.A.Bora, M.Sc.,L.L.B.,A.J.S -President
II) Smti Archana Deka Lahkar,B.Sc.,L.L.B. -Member
III) Sri Jamatul Islam,B.Sc,Former Dy
Director, FCS & CA - Member
Sri Sanjit Kr. Dey -Complainant
S/0 Late Bidu Bhusan Dey
C/O-Jayanta Das, House No.-71,
Bye Lane No -4 P.P.Road,
Rehabari, Guwhati-781008,
District –Kamrup (M), Assam.
-vs-
I) The South Point School, Guwahati, - Opposite parties
21,Barsapara Road,
Battalion Gate, Guwahati-781018,
District –Kamrup (M), Assam.
Represented by its Principal
II) Sri Krishnanjan Chanda,
Principal, South Point School
21,Barsapara Road,
Battalion Gate, Guwahati-781018,
District –Kamrup (M), Assam.
Appearance
Learned advocate Sri T.Ray for the complainant .
Learned advocate Sri R.Dhar for the opposite party No. 1 & 2 .
Date of filing written argument:- 1.10.2018, 9.1.2019
Date of oral argument: 16.10.2020
Date of judgment: - 1 .12.2020
JUDGMENT
1) This is a complaint u/s 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by one Sri Sanjit Kumar Dey S/0 Late Bidu Bhusan Dey, C/O-Jayanta Das, House No.-71,Bye Lane No -4, P.P.Road, Rehabari, Guwhati-781008, District –Kamrup (M), Assam against opp.party No.1, The South Point School, Guwahati- 21, Barsapara Road, Battalion Gate, Guwahati-781018, District –Kamrup (M), Assam, Represented by its Principal and opp.party No.2, Sri Krishnanjan Chanda, Principal, South Point School, 21,Barsapara Road, Battalion Gate, Guwahati-781018, District –Kamrup (M), Assam lodged present complaint against the above named opp.parties.
2) The brief fact of the complainant is that his son Sri Sujay Dey was a student of XI science (cancelled) of opp.party No.1 and on 6.6.2014 the complainant took admission of his son at the school of opp.party No. 1 in class XI (science) and paid total prescribed admission fee of Rs.46,755/- only and the opp.party has also issued admission money receipt (Ex. C1). Above taking admission of the complainant ‘s family decided to continue the study of his son outside Guwahati and on 7.6.2014 the complainant requested the opp.party by a letter (Exhibit-c 2) for cancellation of aforesaid admission and requested to refund the admission fee. The opp.party acknowledged receipt of the letter on the same day.
3) The opp.party No.1 neither taken any initiative steps for refund of admission fees and nor made any communication to the complainant regarding refund of admission fees and such action on the part of opp.party amounts to deficiency of service to its customer . On 30.6.2014 the opp.party No.1 simply handed over a certificate to the complainant’s to the effect that “ as per school admission policy fees once paid is non-refundable, however if the admission is sought to be cancelled within 48 hours of issuing of money receipt 30% of fee under Group A and 100% of fee under Group B may be refundable”. Complainant is also not ready to accept the 30% of admission fee since the complainant requested for cancellation of admission within 24 hours from the date of admission and as such, he is entitled to receive entire admission fee of Rs.46,755/-.
4) The opp.party No. 1 & 2 contested the case of the complainant by filing written statement stating that complainant case is liable to be dismissed. The opp.parties beg to state that complainant had met the South Point School authority which is the opp.party No. 1 represented by its Principal . Opp.party No. 2 tried to resolve the dispute amicably, but the complainant remained adamant to complicate such an issue out of no issue.
5) It has seen specifically mentioned in the written statement that complainant is not a consumer within the definition of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed.
6) The opp.parties in their written statement contended that refund of the admission fees school authority have duly replied about their policy of refund of admission fee etc. and the son of the complainant is not exempted to the procedure adopted by the school and not entitle for any relaxation. It is alleged that under the attending fact and circumstances complainant is not entitled for refund of the entire school fee.
Points for decision:-
7) I) Whether complainant is a consumer under Consumer Protection Act,1986 ?
II) Whether opp.party is liable to return the entire admission on cancellation of admission within 48 hours of the admission ?
III) Whether he is entitled for return of the admission fees and if so to what extent ?
Reasons for decision:-
8) We have gone through the entire evidence on record and heard learned counsel of the complainant as well as perused the written argument placed on record by the parties to the litigation. According to the argument placed on record the opp.party is a school giving admission to the son of the complainant and is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
9) In reply to the above the learned counsel for thr complainant argued that under provision of section 2(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act , 1986 which is read as under,
“ Sec 2(d)(ii) [ hires or avails of ] any service for a consideration which has been paid of promise or partly paid and partly promise, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other that the persons who [hires or avails of ] the services for consideration paid or promise or partly paid and partly promise, or under any system of deferred payment, when such service are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person ….. and
Sec 2(o) “ service means service of any description which is made available to potential [users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of ] facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both [housing construction] entertainment, amusement or the purveying the news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal services.”
9) Here, we have been provided with a case law of similar nature where the Hon’ble Supreme Court took up a matter in appeal in respect to admission of BDS Course in respect of a college admission which is one of the example relied by the complainant that such matter are considered as an educational service and can be taken up under Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly after due hearing we are of the view that issue no. 1 is in favour of the complainant.
10) To determine issue no. 2 we have perused record and scrutinized he evidence . From the evidence available on record and pleading of the parties it appears to us that the dispute is based on condition of admission into a school where the authority of the school issued a letter formulating the terms and conditions about refund of admission fees in case of cancellation.
11) In our present case Issue No-(i) & (ii) taken up for discussion based on a document which has been testified by the complainant as Ext-3(I) . We have taken notice of the above document issued by South Point School ,Guwahati in which it has been categorically mentioned that in case of cancellation of admission within 48 hours after issuing of money receipt 30% of the fees under Group-A & 100% fees under Group-B may be refundable .
12) Having such terms and conditions issued by opp. party , we have been looked into the present dispute and to see whether the complaint as per his allegation went to the school authority within 48 hours for cancellation of his son’s admission . Here we have look into the document testified as Ext-2 which is a photocopy of a letter addressed to the Principal. South Point School, Guwahati which was received with the seal of the school on 07/06/2014. As per above letter the admission of the son of the complainant took place on 06/06/214 and the student code no was -016029. As per above document which has not been contradicted by the opp. party is an evidence in support of the fact that complainant -S.K.Dey submitted cancellation application of the above admission of his son within 45 hours . That been the position there is no other view from the opp. party to held up the refundable amount of the admission fees to the extent of 30% & 100% for both the group as mentioned in Ext-3(I).
13) Now the contesting party to this proceeding further stated in evidence that it is the common practice in their admission process and Ext-3 is the general procedure adopted in cancellation of admission by the school authority . Here we have not found any evidence from the complainant side to hold a view that he is entitled for 100% return of the admission fees on cancellation. The preponderance of probability is that in a private institution they have set their norms of admission etc and party seeking any relief ought have been guided by the rule framed by the institution and option is open for the candidate concerned . As such we are not of the view that opp. party should be guided by any terms and condition of their administration regarding admission etc. except by the authority concerned. There is no evidence brought by the complainant to show that opp. party is bound to refund 100% of the admission fees.
14) Hence, both the issues are found in favour of the complainant and in affirmative.
Now discussion is on Issue No-(iii) whether complainant is entitled for refund of admission fees & is so to what extent.
15) We have carefully gone through Ext-1 , the admission receipt of South Point School, Guwahati dtd 06/06/2014 . In the aforesaid receipt the student namely-Sujay Dey paid an amount of Rs. 35,505/- in Group-A i.e. upper part of the receipt and 30% of the above amount is refundable on cancellation i.e. the refundable amount within 45 hours of Group-A fees of the son of the complainant will be 10,651.50/- and as per Ext-3 the fees under Group-B was Rs.11,250/- which is refundable to the extent of 100% on cancellation . As such, the calculated amount refundable to the complainant on cancellation will be Rs.21,901.50/- . As there is no better document to override the content made in Ext-3 from the side of the complainant we are decline to accept the claim made by the complainant for the entire admission fees. The terms & conditions set by the school authority is optional and complainant himself went there for admission then no option remain open for disagreeing such terms & conditions and it is the duty of the complainant to know all the rules and regulations of the school before taking admission and going for cancellation etc.
16) On the basis of the discussion made here-in-above we are of the opinion that issue No. 3 is partially decided in favour of the complainant and he is entitled for the amount to the extent of Rs.21,901.50 as a refundable amount paid to the opp.party at the time of admission of his son in a private school. However, on due consideration of the entire circumstances which prevailed with the complainant at the time of admission of his son is undesired and follow up action taken by the school authority is not adequate and much irregular as because after receiving the letter from the complainant the school authority replied to the complainant which has been clearly narrated at Annex.V where the entire case has been explained admitting the fact by the opp.party that on 7.6.14 complainant approached the opp.party for cancellation of the admission. In the aforesaid reply letter opp.party have clearly mentioned that the complainant’s son is not an exception for refund of entire admission fees without following the norms set by the school.
17) It is however stated in the reply letter by the opp.party that after receiving the letter from the complainant opp.party initiated the same as per procedure and prevailing practice, but the complainant was not ready to accept the suggestion and the rule prescribed by the school authority. We have elaborately discussed the matter in the earlier issue and found that there is no such major deficiency and irregularity, but however, it ought to be brought to the notice of all the candidates of the school to know the procedure of admission and other relevant matters which has been later on communicated by the opp.party in their notice.
18) Hence , we found that there is a little deficiency in providing services by the school authority . As such, a token amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) only is to be awarded as a compensation to the complainant and also another amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand)only as cost of the proceeding.
19) In the result , complaint petition is allowed . The opp.party is directed to pay the aforesaid amount within 45 days from the date of judgment, in default of payment of awarded amount opp.party have to pay an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of judgment till realization.
Given under our hand and seal of the District Forum, Kamrup, this the 1st day of December/2020.
Member Member President
Smt A.D.Lahkar Md.J.Islam Shri A.F.A Bora
