STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KARNATAKA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/606/2015 Larkspur Education Trust.

PRESENT ADDRESS - No.3/A 2. Berlie Street Cross, Langford town, Bangalore-27.Rep by Secretary, Mrs.Husna Fathima. ,KARNATAKA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus Laxmikant Parashar.

PRESENT ADDRESS - R/at No. 273, Sri. Krisna Krupa MEL Layout, Hesaraghatta Main Road, Bangalore-73 ,KARNATAKA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. RAVISHANKAR , JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. SMT.SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO DATED: 07/08/2025

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH DATED THIS THE 7^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 APPEAL NO.606/2015 PRESENT SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER Larkspur Educational Trust, No.3/A-2, Berlie Street Cross, Langford Town, Bengaluru-560 027 …. Appellant/s Rep by its Secretary Mrs.Husna Fathima (By Sri.B.N.Anantha, Advocate)

-V/s-

Laxmikant Parashar, Aged 49 years, … Respondent/s R/at.No.273, Sri Krishna Krupa, MEL Layout, Hesaraghatta Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 073 (By Sri.Vishwanath.S, Advocate)

O R D E R

BY SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER This appeal is filed by the appellant/Opposite Party being aggrieved by the order dated 11-6-2015 passed by the Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Commission, Bengaluru in CC.No.614/2014 and prays to set-aside the order passed by the District Consumer Commission and allowed the appeal, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The brief fact of the complaint is that, the Opposite Party is an institution which has been specially set up for the purpose of imparting education to children with learning disabilities. The Opposite Party had admitted the son of the complainant only after conducting a thorough assessment of child and on pre condition that the complainant agrees to pay the donation amounting to Rs.50,000/- in three installments along with Rs.4,000/- monthly fees. The complainant had paid Rs.35,000/- in two installments and Rs.15,000/- was the balance amount. When the complainant’s wife had gone to pay the 2^nd installments, the secretary of the Opposite Party insulted her and demanded the entire amount to be paid immediately as per the agreement. For the balance amount of Rs.15,000/-, the Opposite Party made several calls to the complainant’s wife during working hours and threatening that if the balance donation amount is not paid the complainant’s son will not be allowed to take up the exam. Due to extreme mental harassment suffered by the complainant’s family especially his son, the complainant decided to stop sending the child to the school and sent several letters to the Opposite Party seeking for refund of Rs.63,000/- which includes a sum of Rs.35,000/- paid towards donation amount and a sum of Rs.28,000/- paid towards tuition fee for the month of January, 2013 to June, 2013. Despite of repeated requests and reminders, the Opposite Party has failed and neglected to pay the amount. Hence, the complaint.

3. After service of notice of the District Commission, the Secretary of the Opposite Party appeared and filed version and contended that the son of the complainant was given admission after assessment of the child by Dr.Anuradha Kabra, Consultant Clinical Psychologist and report of the doctor was received by the Opposite Party on 2.1.2013. The Opposite Party further contended that it is true that the complainant had paid Rs.28,000/- monthly fee from 1^st Jan.2013 to July 2013 at Rs.4,000/-p.m.. The student was attended the classes and received the special education, attention and care and is treated on par with other similarly placed children needing special care and attention. Further the complainant always spoke rubbish and used threatening tone on the phone to the Opposite Party from Chennai at even odd hours he was disturbing. Hence there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and prays to dismiss the complaint.

4. After trial, the Di