Vijay Bahadur Singh Solanki vs Ankit

SHRI Vijay Bahadur Singh Solanki, Manager of Vandana Higher Secondary School, Gujaini, Kanpur City has filed this set of two revision petitions, being Revision Petition Nos. 4174 of 2009 and 4175 of 2009. In both these revision petitions, he seeks to assail a common order dated 27.08.2009 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (State Commission for short), vide which his two appeals against the order dated 5th December, 2008 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kanpur City (District Forum for short) allowing the complaints of two sets of complainants, have been dismissed.

FACTS of the case are that the respondents-complainants took admission in the petitioner''s school in the 11th class during the academic year 2006-07 on payment of Rs.500/- per student as admission fee, Rs.150/- per month as the school fee for twelve months, Rs.200/- per student for the conduct of half yearly and annual examinations and Rs.500/- per student for appearance in the competitive examination of Science stream. It is also alleged that they paid Rs.600/- per student as tuition fee for eight months. All of them cleared and passed the school examinations for the 11th class and were sent up for studies into the 12th class during the academic session 2007-08. Tuition fee @ Rs.150/- per month was charged from them and entry in this regard was made in the fees card issued to the students. It is also alleged that Rs.150/- per subject per month for Physics, Chemistry, English and Mathematics, totaling to Rs.600/- for the four subjects, were also charged from them for the tutor. In addition, Rs.750/- per student for the conduct of practical examination and Rs.1500/- per student for the 12th class examinations to be conducted by the Secondary Education Board were charged from each one of them. However, when the time came for their appearing for the board examinations, the petitioner''s school failed to hand over the admission ticket for the examinations, firstly asking them to come on the 3rd of March, 2008 and later telling them that the cards have not been received from the Board authorities and yet later telling them that the cards would be distributed at Gian Manjusi Inter Collete, which is the center for their examinations. When they reached the Gian Manjusi Inter College, the petitioner''s school again failed to provide the admission cards, which resulted in utter frustration by the complainants, as they could not appear for the board examinations. The matter was reported to the school authorities as also the District Inspector of Schools but of no avail. It was in this background that a consumer complaint was filed seeking refund of Rs.60,000/- per student and in addition, the other expenditure incurred by them during the course of a period of two years, which they spent in pursuing their studies with the petitioner''s school. The District Forum issued notice to the opposite party, the present petitioner, but did not have the advantage to hear their say and, therefore, proceeded ex-parte against the school. The District Forum on the basis of evidence adduced by the complainants passed the following order :- "Respondents are directed that they on production of the original receipts by the applicants must refund the fee amount received from all the applicants within three months and also pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to each of the applicant within three months. In case of default, respondents shall also be liable to pay the interest @ 10% p.a. on compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- from the date of judgment. Apart from the above respondents shall also pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as the cost of proceedings to the applicants."

Aggrieved thereupon, the petitioner filed a set of two appeals before the State Commission taking the plea that neither any summons nor any notice was served upon them, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the petitioner moved two separate applications; one to rebut the finding of the District Forum that their school was not recognized and the other to make a claim that the respondents-complainants were not the students of their institution but they studied in Moti Lal Memorial Inter College. Both these applications, after due consideration, had been rejected by the State Commission. The State Commission, after hearing the parties, held that the petitioner''s school was grossly deficient in rendering service and vide the order under challenge enhanced the compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per complainant and ordered the petitioner''s school to pay a lump-sum amount of Rs.95,150/- to each one of the complainants. It also imposed a cost of Rs.7500/- in each one of those two appeals.

AGGRIEVED once again, that the petitioner is before us in these revision petitions. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case.

THE main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that neither the respondent-complainants were their students nor have they rendered any service to them. Receipt of any fee/consideration too is denied. According to him, all the respondents-complainants were students of another institution, by the name of Moti Lal Memorial Inter College. He refers to Annexure-B obtained from the said college, which is the data for application for regular candidates for intermediate examination 2008. We simply take note of this argument to reject the same, firstly because the petitioner''s school was proceeded ex-parte before the District Forum and had not filed any written statement nor produced any evidence. The District Forum having categorically held that despite due notice, the petitioner had failed to put in appearance, he could not be permitted to file any evidence at a later stage. Even otherwise, the State Commission has taken note of this contention and has rejected the same. Moreover, the memo of appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission is conspicuous by the absence of any plea that the respondents-complainants were not their students or that they were regular students of Moti Lal Memorial Inter College. The reference to the document obtained from Moti Lal Memorial Inter College will not support their case, as the State Commission has rightly not believed this inadmissible evidence to be true.

THE bald denial of any receipt/fee from the respondents-complainants has to be rejected for the simple reason that the District Forum in its order has clearly stated that receipts for the fees had been filed by the respondents-complainants along with their affidavits.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has also made an oblique reference to the order dated 17.12.2009 passed by the Allahabad High Court, staying the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner''s school by the respondents-complainants. This would have no bearing on this case since we are examining the legality of the order passed by the State Commission. That apart, we find that in the order dated 10th of March, 2010 passed by this Commission the petitioner had indicated his willingness to withdraw the petitioner from the High Court. Therefore, this ground would not come to the rescue of the petitioner. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner''s school has contended that in any event the State Commission has committed an illegality, inasmuch as it has enhanced the award passed by the District Forum even without any challenge to the award, seeking enhancement by the respondents-complainants. We do find merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner''s school. When the respondents-complainants have not filed any revision petition for enhancement of the award passed by the District Forum in their favour, the State Commission by awarding enhanced compensation has exceeded its jurisdiction. We are of the view that to that extent the revision petitions filed by the petitioners deserves to be partly accepted.

Accordingly, both the revision petitions filed by the petitioner''s school/opposite party are partly accepted and the order passed by the State Commission is set aside only to the extent of the enhancement of the compensation and thereby we restore the order passed by the District Forum. The revision petitions are disposed of in these terms.