Pronounced by the President Thiru.R.SHANMUGANATHAN, B.Sc.,B.L., The Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection ACT 1986, to direct the opposite party to refund the School fees of Rs. 34,000/- and to pay Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.25,000/- towards service deficiency and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this proceedings.
1. The case of the complainant in a nutshell runs as follows The complainant is a minor and he is represented by his uncle Shahul Aameed. Complainants father Mohamed Ghani is a working abroad and he has given power of attorney to his brother Shahul Aameed to represent his minor son the complainant herein. The complainant completed the 11 std during the Academic Year 2015-16. Complainants father intended to admit his son in a good boarding School for 11 std. On the recommendation made by some other people he visited the first opposite partys school, where he met the staff of the School, who promised that, it is a best boarding school in Trichy. They also promised that the school, hostel will be very clean, hygienic and with good sanitation. So, the complainants father admitted the complainant in the first opposite party school and paid a sum of Rs.34,000/-. But to his surprise the first opposite party school Hostel was not in a good living condition. The toilets were unclean and not hygienic. Because of the uncleanliness the complainant became ill-health. The Hostel food was also not according to the standard and quality and resulted in diarrhea. The complainants father met the first opposite party to rectify the mistakes in the Hostel, Who were also informed that he will prefer complaint to Chief Education Officer. Provoked by this, the first opposite party instructed the subordinate to issue T.C. The first opposite partys staffs voluntarily issued T.C. to the complainant. Hence, the complainant came out of the school and got admitted in some other school. The complainant did not study in the first opposite party School and also stay in the Hostel. The complainant approached the first opposite party for refund of the school fees, but the same was refused by the first opposite party. Hence, the advocate notice was issued by the complainant to the first opposite party. Hence, the complainant is claiming refund of fees and compensation and cost.
2) 1 opposite parties did not appear before this forum inspite of receipt of notice and hence they were called absent and set exparte.
3) Complainant has filed proof affidavit and marked Ex. A1 to A6.
4)Points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties as prayed for?
5) Point No:-1
6) The complainant is a minor and is represented by his uncle SahulAameed for whom complainants father has given a power of Attorney ExA1. The complainants fathers power of Attorney has said in his evidence that he is a brother of complainants father and he is a guardian of the minor complainant. He has further, stated that the complainants father intended to admit his son in a good boarding School for 11 std. On the recommendation made by some other people he visited the first opposite partys school where he met the staff of the School, who promised that, it is a best boarding school in Trichy. They also promised that school, hostel will be very clean, hygienic and with good sanitation. So, the complainants father admitted the complainant in the first opposite party school and paid a sum of Rs.34,000/-. But to his surprise the first opposite party schools, Hostel was not in a good living condition. The toilets were unclean and unhygienic. Because of the uncleanliness the complainant became ill-health. The Hostel food is also not according to the standard and quality and resulted in diarrhea. The complainants father met the first opposite party to rectify the mistakes in the Hostel. Who are also informed that he will prefer complaint to Chief Education Officer. Provoked by this, the first opposite party instructed the subordinate to issue T.C. The first opposite partys staffs voluntarily issued the T.C. to complainant.
7) Hence, the complainant came out of the school and got admitted in some other school. The complainant did not study in the first opposite party School and also stay in the Hostel. The complainant approached the first opposite party for refund of the school fees, but the same was refused by the first opposite party. Complainant has paid Rs.34,000/- under receipt ExA2 dated 07.06.2016. The advocate notice was issued by the complainant to the first opposite party and is marked as ExA3. The acknowledgement cards for having sent the notice to both the opposite parties are ExA4 and A5.
8) From the evidence, it is clear that the minor complainant was admitted in the School on 07.06.2016. It is alleged that there was no good sanitation in the toilet, good maintenance in the Hostel. He has further added that the student became ill-health. But the power of Attorney has not stated in the evidence that as to how many days the student stayed in the School and Hostel. Nowhere in the pleadings or in the evidence, has he given the details. Any how it has to be presumed that he stayed in the Hostel at least for minimum number of days, for which he has to bear the cost for the stay and food. After some time he has not continued the studies in the same school. The first opposite party has to refund the fees to the student who has left the school, as the first opposite party has issued the T.C. Hence, there is unfair trade practice on the part of the first opposite party in directing the student to go out of the school after the academic year commenced. Further, non-maintenance of Hostel and toilets up to the standards amounts to service deficiency. From the discussion made above it is concluded that there is service deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of first opposite party. Point No:2 As decided in point no.1, there is service deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the first opposite party. As a student has stayed for some days in the Hostel and taken food, a sum of Rs.2,000/- is to be deducted for his stay and food. Hence, the first opposite party is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 32,000/- which he has collected towards school fees after deducting Rs.2,000/- for stay of the complainant. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The first opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.32,000/- to the complainant, and Rs.3,000/- towards service deficiency and for unfair trade practice and Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards cost of this proceedings, to the complainant, within two months from the date of this order. If the opposite party do not comply with the order, the complainant is entitled to take action under section 25 or 27 of the Consumer Protection (Amendment Act) 2002. This order was dictated by the President to the Steno-typist, typed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by us in open Forum, today on this 24 day of April, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER I PRESIDENT
1) Complainant Side Evidence:- Shahul Aameed
2) 1 opposite parties Side Evidence:-Nil.
1) List of Documents filed on the side of the Complainant:- Sl.No. Date Exhibits Description Original &Xerox
1. 02.08.2016 A1 POA in favour of the complainant Original
2. 07.06.2016 A2 Bill No.703 for Rs.34,000/- in the name of Mohamed Farhaan Khan Original
3. 04.08.2016 A3 Lawyer Notice of behalf of Mohamed Farhaan Khan against Opposite parties. Office Copy
4. 05.08.2016 A4 Served Acknowledgement card of 1 opposite party Original
5. 05.08.2016 A5 Served Acknowledgement card of 2 opposite party Original
6. 20.08.2016 A6 Letter by op No. 2 for Enquiry Copy. II) List of Documents filed on the side of the 1 opposite parties:- -Nil- III) Any Other Documents:- -Nil- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER I PRESIDENT