UJJAWAL SURANA vs PRINCIPAL SHRI MAHESH HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL

THIS is a complainant''s appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) and is directed against the order dated 20-7-1990 passed by the District Forum, Jodhpur in Complaint Case No. 618/89 by which the complaint was dismissed. The opposite party impleaded in complaint is Principal Shri Mahesh Higher Secondary School (English Medium) Jodhpur. The complainant is a student and at the time of the filing of the complaint he was a regular student of 12th class. The complainant has challenged in this complaint realization of tuition fee which has been increased by Rs. 15/- as an additional fee, annual magazine fee Rs. 15/- which is being realized from him since he got admission in 9th class; Rs. 20/- as crafts fee; Rs. 4j0/- as games fee; Rs. 50/- as water and electricity charges which were formarly Rs. 15/- p.a. only; Rs. 50/- as extension fee which is being recovered for the last four years and Rs. 40/- as development fee, which is being also realised for the last four years. The complainants in his complaint has prayed that the improper amounts of fees under the above heads may be ordered to be refunded to him and the opposite party may be directed not to realise the fees under the above heads in future. The opposite party contested the complaint by filing the version of the case. It justified the realisation of the additional tuition fees on the basis of the Govt. Order dated 15-6- 1974 and 25-6-1974. As regards the magazine fees it was submitted that the magazine for the last four years will be published this year for it could not be published in the previous years. As regards crafts fee it was submitted that an order of the refund of the crafts fee so far the complainant is concerned was passed and vide receipt No. 794 dt: 1-2-1990 when he deposited the school dues, this amount was refunded. Out of 204 students, crafts fee of Rs. 15/- of 190 students has already been returned. In connection with the games fee of Rs. 40/- it was submitted that for the reasons stated in para 4 of the version of the case fee recovered is reasonable. The amount of Rs. 50/- as water and electricity charges was sought to be justified for the reason stated in para 5 of the version of the case. Extension fee was also sought to be justified on the account of the extension of the building, laboratory, latrines etc. So far as the development fee of Rs. 40/- is concerned, it was submitted that the amount is spent on repairs of the building, furniture and other development activities. In a room two to four fans have been arranged and a generator has also been purchased. It was submitted that all the facilities which are necessary are provided to the students. It was pleaded that the fees realised cannot be characterised as improper. They are reasonable.

THE complainant filed a rejoinder to the version of the case which according to the District Forum was filed without permission and obtaining leave. Parties did not produce any evidence before the District Forum and an affidavit of the father of the complainant was submitted. Various documents showing the realisation of the fees etc, were also submitted. THE District Forum opined that whatever amounts of fees have been realised by the opposite party from the complainant are not improper and they cannot be said to be excessive. It, therefore, dismissed the complaint as aforesaid. THE complainant having been unsuccessful before the District Forum, as stated above, has filed the appeal questioning the correctness and legality of the order. A reply to the appeal was submitted on behalf of the opposite party-respondent justifying the order of the District Forum. It was also stated in the reply to the appeal that the fees realised from the complainant are just and fair. In this appeal arguments in the first instance were heard on 2-5- 1991. Thereafter arguments were heard afresh on 29-6-1991 by the Bench which consisted of the President and two members of the State Commission Mr. J.K. Singhi, learned Counsel for the complainant, has assailed the order of the District Forum stating that the fees realised from the complainant are excessive for the reasons which he has mentioned in the complaint, and, therefore, a direction for the refund of the fee should be made and by order the opposite party may be directed to refund the amounts which have been realised under various heads. It may be stated at once that the complainant has raised grievances with respect to the certain items of the fees which are being realised at present, when he filed the complaint he was reading in 12th class. For the previous years also he has sought refund. It may be stated that the principal question which was canvassed by the learned Counsel for the complainant is that the fees realised by the opposite party are excessive and, therefore, the opposite party be restraint order be directed not to recover such amounts of fees. It was put to the learned Counsel for the appellant whether the reliefs which the complainant has sought in the complaint can be granted under Sec.l4(1) of the Act by a Redressal Forum established under the Act. The complaint is conspicuously silent as to claim for compensation on the ground that the services which the opposite party renders suffer from deficiency as envisaged by Sec. 2(1)(g) of the Act. The two reliefs sought in the complaint as stated above are (1) refund of the fees which have been realised from the complainant and (2) restraining the opposite party from realising the amount under various heads of fees.

It is well settled now that a Redressal Forum constituted under the Act can only grant those reliefs which are enumerated in Sec. 14(1) of the Act and not beyond that. Reference may be made to the judgments R.S.I.S. and I.C. Ltd. v. M/s. Premier Paints (First Appeal No. 51 of 1990 decided on 11.10.1990) and Balacheruvu Layout (Vuda) Flat owner''s Association v. Visakapatnam Urban Development Authority (Original I (1992) CPJ 46 (NC) Petition No. 17 of 1990 decided on 7.11.1990) rendered by the National Commission. The reliefs which the complainant has sought are not covered by Sec. 14(1) of the Act. This aspect of the case was not brought to the notice of the District Forum and, therefore, it examined the question whether the amounts of fees which are being realised from the complainant are excessive or not for the various reasons stated by it in the impugned order, it reached the conclusion that the amounts of fees under the various heads recovered from the complainant-appellant cannot be said to be excessive or improper. It has of course given reasons in support of the conclusion to which it has arrived at. As we are of opinion that the reliefs which the complainant has sought could not be granted by the Redressal Forum which in this case is a District Forum, we, therefore, refrain ourselves from expressing any opinion about the correctness of the findings of the District Forum that the fees so realised from the complainant are proper and not excessive. We do not express any opinion on them. However in view of the conclusion to which we have arrived at the order dismissing the complaint can be maintained on the other ground stated hereinabove.

THE appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.