HIMALAYA PUBLIC SCHOOL Vs. RISHI DUA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of two Appeals No.233 of 1996 filed by Himalaya Public School V/s. Rishi Dua and 309 of 1996 filed by Risi Dua V/s. Himalaya Public School against the same impugned order dated 16th February, 1996 delivered by District Forum, Karnal.

(2.) Complainant-rishi Dua invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Karnal with the grievance that he being a minor son of a deceased Military Officer got admission to 12th Class in the Himalaya Public School, Karnal and paid a sum of Rs.20,000/ being charges on account of number of heads. In addition to that, a sum of Rs.1,000/- was also deposited as pocket money to be utilised by the complainant. After the deposits were made on 27th August, 1994 the complainant was allotted Roll No.4150 and he attended the classes for two days i. e.30th August, 1994 and 31st August, 1994 and with a break of about a fortnight he again attended classes from 13th September, 1994 to 19th September, 1994 and finally on 23rd September, 1994. According to the complainant there was total deficiency in service towards students and the wards in the hostel of the School and the management of the School was not taking care of the health of the students. The complainant got eye-flu on account of unhygenic conditions in the School and also sustained fracture of his right hand finger on account of the misbehavior of the senior students during ragging. The complainant remained unattended in the hostel without any medical facility and it was only when his mother came to the School she found his hand fractured when she got it x-rayed. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the aforesaid deficiency in service on the part of the management of the School/hostel, refund of the amount deposited by the complainant was demanded back. In the written reply filed by the opposite party it was pleaded that the complainant himself was to be blamed as he did not attend the classes and remained absent on one pretext or the other. It was also pleaded that after the death of his father the boy felt mentally disturbed, otherwise there was no fracture of the right hand right hand finger etc. The remaining allegations were stoutly denied by stating that all the medical facilities were available and the complainant was always properly attended. The parties were allowed to lead their evidence, which right they exercised in detail and after consideration of the same the learned District Forum allowed the complaint by holding as under : "for all these reasons, we hold that opposite party is liable to return the amount of Rs.1,000/- deposited as pocket money by the mother of the complainant. In the context of the present case, we are of the view that it will be fair and just to direct opposite party to refund 2/3rd of Rs.20,000/- i. e. Rs.13.500/- to the complainant through his mother Smt. Kanchan. In view of the same, we direct opposite party School to refund the amount of Rs.13,500/- + Rs.1,000/- to the complainant through his mother within 30 days of this order failing which opposite party shall be liable to pay interest on the said amount @ 18% p. a. to the complainant from the date of order till the date of payment.

(3.) In the appeal filed by the School it has been vehemently contended by the learned Counsel that the complaint was not maintainable against the School under the Consumer Protection Act as Educational Institutions were not supposed to render service to the students as the sphere of its activities had been held as imparting of education and holding of examinations. Proceeding on that basis, the learned Counsel argued that the complaint should have been dismissed out-right instead of ordering the refund of 2/3rd amount deposited by the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant has filed the cross appeal claiming refund of the entire amount by pleading that the heavy deposits required by the management of the School were towards catering services rendered in the residential school/hostel and the deficiency in service had been alleged not in the quality of teaching but in providing services in the management of the hostel etc. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we are of the considered view, that so far as the strict imparting of education to the students, holding of examination by the Examining Bodies and Universities are concerned, jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act cannot be invoked by the students or their parents; but so far as deficiency in service experienced by the students in their hostel life, medical attention and allied facilities are concerned, they are certainly entitled to invoke jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act. To illustrate, if a student is declared unsuccessful in a particular examination and by depositing the requisite fee he wants from the University or Examining Body to re-evaluate his answer books or he wants some direction to be issued to the Educational Institution for holding extra lectures, change in curricular or syllabi or in the method or manner in holding examination etc. even including the change in the schedule of holidays and recess etc. , the jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act shall certainly not be available to him. But, if during the examination days or a month or so earlier thereto hostel authorities charge few hundred rupees etc. for providing generator facility in the Hostel to ensure light during the whole night or they charge some extra amount for taking the students from the School hostel to the Examination Hall and back or some amount is charged extra for providing 24 hours medical facility during the examination days in the hostel and in the rendering of the aforesaid services deficiency or defect is established, the students are certainly entitled to invoke the jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act. This is obviously due to the nature of the services rendered by the management of the residential School and hostel etc. which had nothing to do with the imparting of education in the class room, library or during sports and excursion tours and seminar etc. To distinguish, it is a purely commercial wing of the venture running the Educational Institution. Consequently, we dismiss the Appeal No.233 of 1996 filed by the Himalaya Public School and allow the Cross Appeal No.309 of 1996 filed by the complainant-Rishi Dua minor through his mother Smt. Kanchan Dua. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed in its entirety and the entire amount deposited by the complainant i. e. Rs.20,000/- shall be refunded to the complainant alongwith 18% interest thereon w. e. f. the date of deposit. The complainant shall also be entitled to the costs of litigation, which are quantified as Rs.2000/-. Appeal No.233/96 dismissed. Appeal No.309/96 allowed.