Khimkaran Charitable and Education Trust vs Ratansingh N.Thakur

KHIMKARAN Charitable and Education Trust and others Petitioners in this case have filed this revision petitioner under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, aggrieved by the orders of the State Commission and earlier by the District Forum, where they were Respondents/ Opposite Parties.

BRIEFLY the facts of the case according to the Petitioners are as follows: The daughter of Respondents No.1 and 2 Ms Priya R Thakur (Respondent No. 3) was studying in Rajasthan Hindi Vidyalaya, a school managed by the Petitioner Khimkaran Charitable and Education Trust from 1st Standard upto 5th Standard (May 2002). She was thereafter asked to leave the school, because despite many reminders there was default in payment of her fees for several months. As per rules of the school, in case of default a students name is removed from the school Register. Petitioner No.1 has further stated that in order to facilitate her admission to some other school, she was issued a school leaving certificate certifying her good conduct and academic performance, on 06.05.2002, soon after the declaration of final results of 5th Standard examination. The Petitioners have further stated that Respondent No. 1, who was the Secretary of the Parents Association, used to behave in a very high-handed manner by seeking special facilities for his daughter, intimidating school staff and even filing a police complaint against the institution and its employees. He made false allegations against the school and the Trust before the State Education Minister. However, despite this no malpractice was proved against the School or the Trust. Respondents on the other hand have contended that Respondent No. 3 was summarily asked to leave the school, because as the Secretary of the Parent Association, Respondent No.1 had made certain submissions/ complaints about the lapses and malpractices in the running of the school to both Government as well as to the semi-Government institutions. In this connection, Respondent No.1 had also written to the State Education Minister, who gave instructions to the District Primary Education Officer to ensure refund of fees over-charged by the Petitioner school from the students. Respondent No.1 has further stated that it was not correct that he defaulted in payment of fees; in fact, he had paid excess fees which were required to be adjusted against later payments. Therefore, his daughter was arbitrarily asked to leave the school, not because of alleged non-payment of fees but because he had rightly complained against the schools mis-management, to higher authorities.

Aggrieved by the action of the Petitioners, Respondents filed a complaint before the District Forum on the grounds of deficiency in service, and sought readmission of Respondent No.3 and Rs.50,000/- as cost for causing physical and mental tension and agony to them. The District Forum, after considering the evidence filed by both the parties, inter alia concluded that the Petitioners were wrong in asking a bright and meritorious girl student to leave the school on the grounds that her father had complained against the school. District Forum therefore, ruled in favour of the Respondents and gave them the following relief: Rs.25,000/- as compensation within a period of 30 days which in case of default would carry an annual interest of 9%; and Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, an appeal was filed before the State Commission by the Petitioners, The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum with the modification that the compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- be reduced to Rs.15,000/-. The Petitioners have now come in revision before us. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. None was present on behalf of the Respondents.

LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioners in his submission has reiterated that the reasons for the Petitioners decision to remove Respondent No.3s name from the school was because of major default in payment of fees. As per details on record, Respondent No. 1 had not deposited the fees in respect of Respondent No.3 for the entire period when she was studying in Standard IV and again from September 2001 to May 2002 in Standard V despite many requests/ reminders to do so. He further pointed out that as per Rule 25 of the Schools Rules, a student is required to pay the school fees on the 10th of every month failing which the name of the student can be removed from the Register of the school without any notice. Therefore, the school was fully within its rights to remove the name of Respondent No. 3 from the school Register on account of this default. LEARNED Counsel also pointed out that although Respondent No.1 has made allegations that the school had charged excess fees from him, no proof of this was submitted at any stage and it was a false and malafide allegation. It was unfortunate that the learned Fora below did not take these important aspects into account but instead relied on Respondent No.1s biased version that because he had complained against the school, as an act of vendetta, his daughter was asked to leave. On the other hand, even though it was a fact that Respondent No. 1 had been intimidating the staff of the school and making false allegations against them, Petitioners facilitated her admission to another school by giving her a certificate about her being a good student. On going carefully through the record, we find the following details of the fees deposited in respect of Respondent No.3: Date Receipt Number Duration Standard Amount in Rs. 23.06.1998 3401 June 1998 to September 1998* 2 640/- 15.10.1998 1250 October 1998* 2 160/- 22.01.1999 865 November 1998 to January 1999 2 240/- 05.03.1999 1976 February 1999 to May 1999 2 400/- 30.06.1999 3007 June 1999 3 480/- 09.09.1999 4010 July 1999 3 80/- 13.10.1999 4886 August 1999 to October 1999 3 320/- 15.02.2000 6360 November 1999 to January 2000 3 240/- 17.02.2000 6373 February 2000 3 80/- 07.03.2000 6577 March 2000 to May 2000 3 320/- 02.05.2001 769 June 2001 to August 2001 5 480/-.

THE fees include, apart from tuition fee, fees for library, sports, laboratory etc. A perusal of this record (which has not been rebutted or denied by the Respondents) makes it clear that no fees were paid for the period when Respondent No. 3 was in Standard IV and also for the period from September 2001 to May 2002, when she was in Standard V. This proves the fact that the Respondents were indeed in default on this count. It is also on record that as per Rule 25 of the Schools Rules it was compulsory to deposit the fees by the 10th of every month failing which the name of the student was liable to be removed from the class Register, without any notice. All educational institution have their own set of rules and regulations governing various aspects of their management, schedule of fee payment, discipline, etc. Compliance with these rules and regulations is necessary for the smooth and efficient functioning of the school as well as for its reputation. It is also in the larger interest of the student community. There is credible evidence on record that the Respondents were not complying with some of these rules and regulations on a number of occasions and this by itself was adequate and justifiable reason for the school to take necessary action as per the Rules against the Respondents. It appears that the State Commission and, earlier the District Forum, erred in relying substantially on the issue of the dispute between the two parties, stemming from the allegations made by the Respondents instead of examining the case in its entirety.

KEEPING in view all these facts, we set aside the order of the State Commission and allow the revision petition, with no order as to costs.