Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V.K. Jain, P.M.
EUROKIDS INTERNATIONAL PREPRIMARY SCHOOL - Appellant
Versus
WENDY FERNANDES - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 212 of 2015 with I.A. No. 470 of 2015 (for stay) from Order dated 28.10.2014 in First Appeal No. 79 of 2014 of Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji.
Decided on : 10-02-2015
Gautam N. Pednekar, Advocate, for the Appellant; None for the Respondents, for the Respondent
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act and its application to the refund of school fees.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Refund of School Fees - The court considered whether the petitioner could be considered a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act and relied on the interpretations of the Act provided in previous Supreme Court decisions. The court analyzed the nature of the services provided by the school and the consideration paid by the complainant, ultimately influencing the decision on the refund of school fees.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant admitted her autistic child to a preschool and paid a sum of Rs. 20,800 towards various fees. The child was withdrawn from the school after twenty days, and the complainant sought a refund of the proportionate fee paid.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum directed the petitioner to refund a sum of Rs. 15,000 to the complainant, along with interest, compensation, and litigation costs. The State Commission dismissed the appeal, leading the petitioner to challenge the orders before the Commission.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could be considered a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, and if the school fees were refundable upon withdrawal of the child from the school.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretations of the Consumer Protection Act provided in previous Supreme Court decisions, emphasizing that the consideration paid by the complainant and the nature of the services provided by the school were crucial in determining the applicability of the Act and the refund of fees.
Final Decision: The court issued an ad-interim stay of the impugned order and scheduled a notice to the respondent for further proceedings.
ORDER
V.K. Jain, (P.M) - The complainant got her autistic child aged about four years admitted in Junior K.G. class of Eurokids International Pre-School in the Academic year 2012-2013. A sum of Rs. 20,800 was paid by her towards admission fee, registration, half yearly fee, cost of books, cost of uniform, etc. However, the child was withdrawn from the school after twenty days and the complainant sought refund of the proportionate fee etc., paid by her. She also claimed that the school had not issued any books or uniform to the child. The complaint was opposed by the petitioner, inter alia on the ground that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are not applicable and as per the rules of the school, the parents have to pay half yearly fee which includes registration, kit, term fee, uniform, tuition fee, etc., and the said fee is not refundable even if the child is later withdrawn from the school.
2. Videits order dated 1.9.2014, the District Forum directed the petitioner to refund a sum of Rs. 15,000 to the complainant, along with interest on that amount @ 10% per annum, besides compensation amounting to Rs. 10,000 and cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 5,000.
3. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 28.10.2014, the State Commission dismissed the appeal with costs assessed at Rs. 2,000. The petitioner is now before this Commission challenging the orders passed by the Fora below.
4. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be said to be a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(l)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since no services were hired or availed by her by admitting her child with the school. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC 483 and Maharishi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, (2010) 11 SCC 159.
5. In Bihar School Examination Board (supra), two persons Rajesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar Singh who appeared in the examination were allotted the same Roll No. 496. The Centre Superintendent allotted Roll No. 496-A to Rajesh Kumar and communicated the same to the Board. However, his result was not published due to which he had to reappear in the next year, thereby suffering loss of one year due to the fault of the Board. Alleging deficiency on the part of the Board, he filed a consumer complaint, seeking compensation from the Board. The complaint was resisted by the Board, inter alia on the ground that the complainant was not a 'consumer' as defined under Section 2(1 )(d) of the Act. Accepting the plea taken by the Board, the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia observed and held as under:
"11. The Board is a statutory authority established under the Bihar School Examinations Board Act, 1952. The function of the Board is to conduct school examination. This statutory function involves holding periodical examinations, evaluating the answer scripts, declaring the result and issuing certificates. The process of holding examination, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function. It is not possible to divide this function as partly statutory and partly administrative.
12. When the Examination Board conducts an examination in discharge of its statutory function, it does not offer its 'services' to any candidate. Nor does a student who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, hire or avail of any service from the Board for a consideration. On the other hand, a candidate who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, is a person who has undergone a course of study and who requests the Board to test him as to whether he has imbibed sufficient knowledge to be fit to be declared as having successfully completed t
