Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 142 (CHH)

TINY TOTS SCHOOL v. BADRUDDIN KHOKHAR

2006-03-04

R.S.AWASTHI, V.K.AGARWAL

body2006
ORDER As per Hon'hle Justice Shri V.K. Agarwal, President :_ 1. This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 arises from the order dated 26.7.05 in Complaint No. 18/2004, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called 'District Forum' for short), directing the appellant's institution to pay to the complainant/ respondent Rs. 5,740/- realized from the complainant, Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost with interest @ of 9% payable from the date of complaint. 2. Indisputably, appellant/opposite party is an educational institution. The complainant admitted his 4 yr' old minor son in Nursery class of appellant's institution for academic session 2003-04. It is also not in dispute that at the time of admission the complainant/respondent deposited with the appellant Rs. 1,000/- as building fund, besides total sum of Rs.4,200/-. The complainant also paid Rs.60/- towards computer fee per month. Some other amounts in miscellaneous heads were also realized from the complainant. 3. The complainant's grievance was that the appellant demanded donation and 3 month's advance fee in the month of October 2003, There was a dispute between the appellant's Principal and the complainant, as the complainant expressed his inability to pay the said amount. Ultimately, on account of the said dispute the complainant's son was removed from the appellant's institution. The allegation of the complainant was that instead of admission fee of Rs.500/-, an amount of Rs.2,500/- was realized from him. It was averred that the complainant's son was unduly tortured, as a result of which the complainant's son has developed fear complex and has become abnormal. The complainant has therefore prayed that Rs.5, 740/- paid by him be directed to be refunded and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- be awarded. 4. The appellant in its written version admitted that a sum of Rs. 2,500/- was realized, besides the amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards building fund. However, it was submitted that the said amount of Rs.2,500/- was not only towards admission fee, but also included charges on some other heads. It was also averred that the complainant himself stopped sending his child to the appellant's institution and he himself did not wish to continue the education of his son, in the appellant's institution because he was not be in a position to bear the expenses of education of his son. It was denied that there was any deficiency in service by the appellant's institution. It was denied that there was any deficiency in service by the appellant's institution. 5. The District Forum initially decided the complaint exparte against appellant by order dated 16.4.2004. Appeal no. 220/2004 preferred by the appellant was allowed and the complaint was remitted back to District Forum for reconsideration and decision afresh after giving the appellant opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 26.7.05 has been passed, directing refund of Rs.5, 740/- paid by the complainant to the appellant, as well as compensation of Rs.5,000/- besides cost of Rs. 1,000/- payable with interest etc. as noticed earlier. 6. Learned counsel for parties were heard. Record of District Forum perused. 7. The main question that arises for the consideration is as to whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant or as to whether the complainant himself withdrew his minor son from the appellant's institution? 8. As already noticed, the appellant has not disputed that complainant deposited Rs.5,740/- as has been alleged by him. It was submitted that the said charges were realizable under various heads as detailed by the complainant in para 5 of the complaint. The learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the prospectus issued by them. We have perused the copy of the prospectus and the particulars of fees realizable under various heads as mentioned therein. The fees particulars given in the prospectus, are as below: A. Admission Fee 500/- B. Examination Fee 300/- C. Annual Fee 600/- D. Monthly Maintenance Fee 500/- (For 2 months) E. Building Development Fund 1,000/- (At the time of admission only) F. Progress Report Card 100/- G. Miscellaneous Fee 500/- 9. It would thus appear from the prospectus that admission fee of Rs.500/- was to be charged at the time of admission only. However, copy of the receipt dated 1.4.2003 submitted by the complainant/respondent indicate that an amount of Rs.2,500/- was charged as admission fee from the complainant. It was averred on behalf of the appellant institution that the above amount of Rs.2,500/- included charges on various heads. However, the receipt dated 1.04.03 does not indicate so, and it does not appear there from that amount of Rs.2,500/- was realized, regarding charges under other heads also. The appellant's institution has failed to produce the accounts ledger etc. to substantiate it's averments as above. Another receipt shows that Rs. However, the receipt dated 1.04.03 does not indicate so, and it does not appear there from that amount of Rs.2,500/- was realized, regarding charges under other heads also. The appellant's institution has failed to produce the accounts ledger etc. to substantiate it's averments as above. Another receipt shows that Rs. 1,000/- were received by the appellant towards building fund. Copies of other receipts filed on record show that the appellant was charging sometime Rs.250/- and sometime Rs.310/- from the complainant. Realization of fee several times as above, was always shown to be under the head "admission fee". In fact, though the appellant has averred that the tuition fee was payable every month, however, there is no head in the prospectus or in the receipts issued by appellant for realization of tuition fee. 10. It would further appear that certain heads regarding annual fee, misc. fee, maintenance fee have been provided, in the prospectus, which are vague and no explicit reason can be deciphered from the said particulars. Therefore, the averments of the appellant in para 5 that the tuition fee was to be paid every month, by the complainant, is not fortified by the fees particulars as given in the prospectus. Moreover, the receipts issued by the appellant as pointed out above, only show realization of fee towards the head admission fee. The perusal of the said receipts also shows that they are discrepant and did not clearly indicate the actual amount realized by the said receipts. In some of the receipts, the amount in figures and letters vary. 11. Obviously, therefore all was not fair so far as realization of charges by the appellant institution. It is also clear that the complainant had discontinued the studies of his child from the appellant's institution from October 2003. Therefore, he could not be made to pay fee for examination or annual fee or miscellaneous fee for which there is no specific reason. 12. Indisputably, the complainant's son was admitted and studied in the appellant's institution till October 2003. Hence, the direction to refund the whole amount paid by him at the time of admission, appears to be not fully justified. Though the appellant has stated that the complainant himself withdrew his child from the appellant's institution, however, the complainant's averment was that the discontinuance as above was on account of unjustified demand of advance fee for three months and donation etc. Though the appellant has stated that the complainant himself withdrew his child from the appellant's institution, however, the complainant's averment was that the discontinuance as above was on account of unjustified demand of advance fee for three months and donation etc. 13. There is no material, except the affidavits, to support the mutually conflicting allegations as above. However, the complainant's averments regarding the cause for discontinuance of studies of his son appear to be more probable because normally having admitted his son in an institution, the parents would not normally withdrew him without some substantial reasons. Considering the fact that the complainant's son, studied in the appellant's institution till October 2003 i.e. for about half the session, it appears just and proper to direct refund of Rs.3,000/- with compensation of Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service by the appellant. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, the impugned order is modified. Instead thereof, it is directed that the appellant shall pay to the complainant total sum of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight thousand only) will interest @ 9% per annum thereon, payable from the date of complaint. The appellant shall bear its own cost of appeal and shall pay that of the complainant/respondent, which is quantified at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only. Appeal Rejected.