Mr. B.L. Anand, Member — This appeal has been filed by the Apeejay School Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi-1 against the impugned order dated 24.3.92 passed by the learned District Forum No. II, Delhi.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Shri J.N. Sahu (Respondent No. 4) got admission of her daughter in Nursery class in Apeejay School for the Session 1990-91. The admission process was completed in November, 1989. Shri J.N. Sahu, complainant before the District Forum paid a sum of Rs. 2,900/- on 30.11.89 consisting of tuition fee Rs. 750/- (for three months from April to June), Rs. 240/- as Annual Charges, Rs. 500/- as Admission Fee and Rs. 1,500/- as Caution Money.

3. On 26.2.90 the said complainant sought cancellation of the admission of his daughter and requested for the refund of all the fees except admission fee. However, the Apeejay School refunded only caution money of Rs. 1,500/-. The contention of Shri J.N. Sahu was that as per the conditions set-out in printed prospectus of school, he was entitled to the refund claimed by him. The claim was contested by the opposite party. The District Forum has held that the school had no right to retain any dues paid by the complainant except the admission fee and that the remaining amount was refundable to the complainant and vide impugned orders the school was directed to refund the balance amount of Rs. 1,090/- along- with interest @12% p.a. w.e.f. 26.2.90 upto the date of payment.

4. The appellants in their grounds of appeal have primarily relied on the rules regarding withdrawal given in their prospectus which are reproduced for reference as under :—

“Withdrawals : One month’s clear notice in writing or one month tuition fee in lieu thereof is required for withdrawal of the child from the school. If the notice of withdrawal is given on the first of March or later in the academic year, the fees of the months of March, April and May will be charged.

In case a student leaves the school within a month of his/her admission, he/she will be refunded half of annual dues in case those have been paid in full. Registration fee, tuition fee and admission fee and bus charges are not refundable.”

They have also pleaded that the Educational Institutes like the appellant school were not covered under the ambit of any Act. Another point raised in the grounds of appeal was that the complaint filed before the District Forum does not answer the description of complaint as defined under Section 2(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They have further taken the plea that the imparting education was a contract for personal service and as such it was not covered under Section 2(o) of the Act.

5. The appellants have also mentioned in their grounds of appeal that the following observations in the impugned orders were made by the learned District Forum without any basis and that no pleadings or any evidence in this regard was there on record.

“...We would also like to observe that this practice of forfeiting huge dues without rendering any services is grossly unfair and against the interest of the public—it sounds like a racket. In the present situation of demand and supply, these public service institutions have become mercenary and they exploit the anxiety of the parents for admission to schools which pose as prestigious institutions.”

6. We have gone through the record and heard the parties at length. It was an admitted fact on record that the admission of the daughter of Shri J.N. Sahu respondent/complainant was done during November, 1989. We have carefully examined the provisions made under the heading of withdrawal in the prospectus of-the school. The academic year is to be counted as the period when the classes are started in any institute and goes upto the last date of holding the classes. In the instant case it is an admitted fact that the admission procedure was completed in November, 1989 and the application for cancellation of the same was made on 26.2.90 by which date the academic session of the re