SRI GANGA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL vs C. NITHYA (MINOR)

THE opposite party in O.P. No. 97/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Erode, is the appellant herein. THE case of the complainant was as follows: (a) She joined the opposite party school after paying a total sum of Rs. 18,300 - Rs. 10,000 on 19.6.2001 at the time of submitting the application, Rs. 2,000 on 5.7.2001 as caution deposit, Rs. 4,400 (out of fees Rs. 2,900 and exam fees Rs. 1,500) on 5.7.2001 and establishment charges of Rs. 1,900. THE food provided in the hostel was not of good quality. She fell ill and could not continue her studies by staying in the hostel. She, therefore, had to quit the school. She took treatment from one Dr. N.K. Arul Jothi. All the amounts due to the hostel were also paid by the complainant in full at the beginning itself. Within 10 days of getting admitted the complainant informed the opposite party that the hostel food did not suit her and demanded the return of the fees paid by her while quitting the residential school. THE opposite party delayed the repayment of the amounts stating that the School Board had to be consulted. He also delayed the issuance of transfer certificate to facilitate her to join another School. THE opposite party issued the transfer certificate to the complainant only on 25.2.2002 even though the complainant had left the school on 24.7.2001. He had purposely refused to receive the application for issuance of transfer certificate and finally received it on 11.2.2002 and issued the transfer certificate on 25.2.2002. THErefore, she lost the chance to join another school and in the process lost one academic year. She caused a legal notice to be issued to the opposite party for refund. Since there was no response, the complaint came to be filed for refund of Rs. 18,300 with interest @ 18%, Rs. 10,000 as compensation for the illness due to poor quality of food provided in the hostel and Rs. 50,000 as compensation for loss of one academic year due to delay in issuing transfer certificate and for cost in a sum of Rs. 1,000.

THE opposite party resisted the complaint stating that the complainant left the school without any reason and had absented herself from 3.8.2001. Because of her long absence, her name was removed from the attendance register on 29.9.2001. On 11.2.2002 her father applied for transfer certificate. It was issued on his next call on 25.2.2002. As per the prospectus issued by the opposite party, institution transfer certificate in between the academic year could be had only on payment of entire term fees and it was made clear that the caution deposit of Rs. 2,000 would not be refunded to those who left the school in between. Before the District Forum, on the side of the complainant, Exs. A1 to A8 were marked while on the side of the opposite party Exs. B1 to B10 were marked.

The District Forum allowed the complaint in part and awarded compensation of Rs. 8,433 and cost of Rs. 500.

IT is as against that the present appeal has been filed. The learned Counsel for the opposite party/appellant submitted that as per the terms and conditions of admission, the complainant would not be entitled to any refund. She had left the institution voluntarily. Counsel also relied on the judgment reported in 1999 (3) CPR 227.

AS against that the learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that the quality of food supplied in the hostel was of very bad quality and it affected the health of the complainant that she had no option other than to leave the hostel and in the process she lost an academic year. This was further compounded by the fact that the opposite party did not give the transfer certificate within a reasonable time. Counsel also relied on a decision in III (2002) CPJ 5 (NC), wherein it has been held that even if there was a voluntary withdrawal from the school refund of the fees paid had to be made by the school. The complainant had studied in the school just for 19 days. The opposite party did not send her out of school. She had stopped voluntarily. In III (2002) CPJ 158 (NC), it has been held by the National Commission ''imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration is a service and falls within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act''. In a decision reported in I (1996) CPJ 37 (NC), the National Commission had ordered refund of 1/3rd of the amount deposited by the student irrespective of the rule contained in the prospectus of the institution. In III (2002) CPJ 5, where there was a withdrawal from school by the student the District Forum directed refund of fee after deduction Rs. 465, the State Commission held that even in the case of voluntary withdrawal the opposite party was liable to refund examination and security fee in full and other charges in proportionate. Taking the ratio of those decisions into consideration, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund 1/3rd of the amount collected from the complainant plus Rs. 500 as cost. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. In fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No cost. Appeal dismissed.