SATARA ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL & ANR Vs. MRUNALINI DILIP PATIL
LAWS(MHCDRC)-2008-3-2
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on March 14,2008

Satara English Medium School And Anr Appellant
VERSUS
Mrunalini Dilip Patil Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the District Forum, Satara in Complaint No. 145/1996 dated 5.2.1998, whereby O.Ps. have been directed to refund amount of Rs. 2,000 and building fund of Rs. 1,000 to the complainant with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 29.5.1993 till realization and also directed to pay Rs. 2,000 towards compensation for mental torture and Rs. 1,000 towards cost, the O.Ps. have filed this appeal challenging the said order.
(2.) ACCORDING to complainant she has two children Ms. Mansi and Master Dhairyashil. Their date of birth is 23.5.1990. O.P. No. l is the Principal of Satara English Medium School, Mangalwar Peth, Satara and O.P. No. 2 is the Chief and Director of the said school. Complainant who is doctor by profession admitted her children in the Satara English Medium School of O.Ps. for the academic year 1993 -1994. O.P. No. 2 compulsorily demanded Rs. 1,000 towards building deposit and Rs. 2,000 towards donation apart from admission fees. O.Ps. issued receipt for Rs. 1,000 for building deposit but did not issue receipt of donation. She was told that there is no practice to issue receipt of donation. She further pleaded that both her children completed their junior and senior K.G. classes and complainant went with her children to collect their result on 9.4.1995. However, O.P. No. 2 asked for Rs. 50 each for admission of her children in the next class. Complainant told that she was ready to pay Rs. 100 provided O.Ps. gave receipts for the same. However, the school authorities plainly told her that receipt would not be issued for the same amount. So, complainant did not pay Rs. 100 as admission fee. Thereafter she admitted her children in the 1st standard in opponents' school for the year 1995 -1996 by paying fees of June and July, 1995. However, opponents did not allow her children to sit in the class. When asked for the reason, the opponents gave evasive reply. Complainant then met Education Officer and lodged the complaint. Still O.Ps. informed complainant that her children would not be allowed to sit in the class. Therefore, to avoid loss of one academic year of her children, she took her children to another school and admitted them in Marathi medium school. Complainant demanded refund of amounts paid by her and school leaving certificate and date of birth certificate of her children to the opponents. She gave letter in writing to that effect to the O.Ps. on 8.8.1995. However, O.Ps. did not refund the fees and other amounts and nor did they give school leaving certificate and birth certificate of her children. Complainant then sent registered notice through her Advocate and asked for refund of amounts and certificates but despite the same, O.Ps. did not comply with her request but sent false reply to notice on 31.10.1995. According to complainant act of opponents is of irresponsible nature. It amounted to deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. O.Ps were legally bound to render proper service to the complainant and despite taking admission fee, her children were not allowed to sit in the class and, therefore, complainant was left with no choice but to withdraw her children from O.P. school and got them admitted in Annasaheb Rajbhosale Primary School, Satara (a Marathi medium school) much against her children's wishes. Due to change in medium, her children's academic career got affected for which O.Ps. are squarely responsible.
(3.) IT was pleaded by the complainant that O.Ps. were duty -bound to issue school leaving certificate but by not giving the same they were guilty of deficiency in service and unfair practice. Hence, she filed complaint claiming Rs. 5,000 towards mental torture, Rs. 20,000 towards compensation for academic loss and mental harassment of her children caused due to change in medium and also sought refund of Rs. 3,000 towards building fund and donation and also prayed for cost of the proceeding. The O.Ps. who are appellants herein filed written statement and pleaded that building deposit was paid by the complainant while admitting her children in nursery class at her own accord to the Ajinkya Education Society for which receipt was issued but they denied demand of donation as alleged by the complainant or acceptance of any amount without receipt from the complainant. They pleaded that after result of K.G. class was declared, the parents of the children were informed that they should pay admission fee for first standard and get their wards admitted for first standard. However complainant did not take admission of her children in the first standard even after reopening of the school on 12.6.1995 but children of the complainant started attending the school without paying admission fee for first standard. The O.Ps. therefore, on phone informed the complainant that as per rules she should take admission of her children. Accordingly, complainant visited office of the school in last week of June1995 and assured to deposit admission fees and tuition fees for the month July 1995 in the bank account of the opponents. On 8.7.1995, complainant deposited only tuition fees but did not deposit admission fees. So, opponents wrote letter to the complainant on 18.7.1995 requesting her to pay admission fees by 21.7.1995 failing which she was told that her children would not be allowed to sit in the class.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.