A. SREELATHA Vs. PRINCIPAL, ROOTS MONTESSORI SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a delay of 22 days in filing this revision petition. We have perused the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of the delay. The only reason given in the application is that the delay was neither deliberate nor wilful. Since no reason has been put forth by the petitioner to justify condonation of delay, we are not inclined to condone the delay and the revision petition is liable for dismissal on this ground alone.

(2.) Coming to the merits, the petitioner who is the original complainant, admitted her three years old child in the respondent's school by paying a sum of Rs. 23,750. Not satisfied with the behavioral aspect of the child, the school requested the petitioner to withdraw her child. The child attended the school for a few hours over a period of 37 days. In view of the request of the school and also feeling concerned about the safety of the child in the school, the petitioner withdrew the child from the school and requested for refund of the fee paid. The school refunded only Rs. 9,500 and refused to return the balance amount of Rs. 11,400. Alleging it as deficiency in service, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint claiming refund of the balance amount of the fee along with compensation, etc. Vide its order dated 28.2.2006, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent/opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards compensation with cost of Rs. 1,000 within a period of one month. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondent filed an appeal before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai ('State Commission' for short). The State Commission vide its order dated 11.1.2011 partly allowed the appeal and modified the order of the District Forum by directing the respondent/opposite party to refund the balance amount of Rs. 11,400 within two months from the date of receipt of the order failing which, this amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of default till the date of payment. It is against this impugned order that the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant.

(3.) We have heard Dr. A.V. Ramana Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and perused the record. The State Commission while partly accepting the appeal of the respondent and modifying the order of the District Forum has recorded the following reasons in support of its decision: