RAJIV JINDAL vs MADHU BEHL

SHRI Rajiv Jindal and his wife Smt. Meenakshi Jindal are residing in Sector 27D, Chandigarh. Their small daughter Navina was admitted in 1995 in the Nursery class in the D.A.V. Centenary Public School, Sector 7B, Chandigarh. Thereafter on 10.4.1997 she was admitted to IInd Class and a sum of Rs. 1,890/- was deposited as fee. In addition to it a sum of Rs. 866/- was spent on purchase of books on 12.4.1997. At the time of original admission a sum of Rs. 2,490/- was deposited on 25.2.1995. However, the aforesaid child was turned out from the School at the end of April, 1997. A complaint was instituted seeking damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, refund of Rs. 5,000/- as fees and after adding interest a total sum of Rs. 65,000/- has been claimed. The complaint was dismissed in limine by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Union Territory, Chandigarh, on 14.8.1997. Aggrieved against it the present appeal has been preferred.

A notice was issued to the respondent Principal and she has placed a reply on record through her Counsel wherein it has been averred that earlier Smt. Meenakshi Jindal was acting as PTI Teacher in this School but it was a temporary arrangement and she was discharged and in lieu thereof a male teacher was appointed. A note was put up by Arts & Crafts teacher in the diary of this infant student on 29.4.1997 and as a protest the parents of the aforesaid child came to her office and allegedly misbehaved whereas some members of staff came to her rescue. The refundable security, charges of stationery were refunded to the parents of the child. There is no plea that there was any act of indiscipline or irregularity on the part of this student. Now a reply alongwith documents has been placed on record by the Principal and it is not considered necessary to remand the case because all the facts are available. The facts make it clear that Mr. Rajiv Jindal, appellant hired the services of D.A.V. Centenary Public School, Sector 7B, Chandigarh, for the education of his daughter and paid all the necessary fees and spent various amounts mentioned in the complaint. His daughter was not provided services for no fault of her. If there was any grouse against parents of the student the Principal could proceed against them under the relevant law of land but denial of service to Navina, the infant student amounts to deficiency on the part of the respondent. Accordingly we find that the respondent was deficient in providing service to the minor student. It is ordered that the respondent shall refund the total amount of Rs. 1,890/- deposited on behalf of the student and besides this it shall pay nominal damages of Rs. 500/-. Appeal allowed.