State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Correspondent & 6 Others.Msr, ... vs Karthik, Madurai. on 23 April, 2015
IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MADURAI BENCH.
Present: Thiru.A.K.ANNAMALAI, M.A.M.L.,M.Phil., Presiding Judicial Member
Thiru.M.MURUGESAN, B.Sc.,B.Ed., Member
C.C.No.22/2013
THE 23rd DAY OF APRIL 2014.
Date of complaint filed : 03.10.2013
Date of order pronounced: 23.04.2015
1. R. Karthik,
On behalf of his minor daughter
S/o. Raman,
77,D/1, K.R.K. Nagar,
Peraiyur Post,
Madurai District.
2. K. Manavalan,
(Managing Trustee, South Indian Consumer
and Human Rights Protection Council,
(a registered voluntary consumer organization)
through its Managing Trustee Mr.K.Manavalan,
# 155/1, North Veli Street,
Simmakal Circle,
Madurai- 625 001. Complainants
Vs
1. M.S.R. Matriculation School.
Represented by the Correspondent,
T.Kallupatti, Madurai District.
2. Bharathiyar Matriculation School,
Represented by the Correspondent,
Elumalai, Madurai District.
3. Thendral Primary and Nursery School,
Represented by the Correspondent,
Peraiyur, Madurai District.
2
4. Lord Venkateswara Matriculation School,
Represented by the Correspondent,
T. Kallupatti, Madurai District.
5. The Director, (Matriculation Schools),
DPI Compound,
College Road,
Chennai 600 006.
6. Member Secretary,
Fees Determination Committee for
Matriculation Schools,
B.D.A. Building,
College Road,
Chennai 600 006.
7. The Inspector of Matriculation Schools,
Madurai District. Opposite Parties
Counsel for Complainants : Mr.Solaisubramanian @ Subramanian, Advocate.
Counsel for Opposite Parties 1 to 4 : Mr.R. Selvaraj, Advocate.
Counsel for Opposite Parties 5 to 7 : The complaint against the opposite
parties 5 to 7 dismissed for default.
This complaint coming before us for final hearing on 16.04.2015
and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material
records this Commission made the following:
ORDER
THIRU. A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
The complainant under section 17(1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for direction to the 1st opposite party to collect only the school fees as determined by the Justice Singaravel Committee for the year 2013-2014 and already as they collected in excess than the fee determined by the 3 committee for the year 2013-14 to direct for the refund of those amount and also as they have collected the amount in the 1st term fees in advance to restrain from collecting further fees for the 2nd and 3rd terms and to deposit Rs.25,00,000/- as punitive damages for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice with the State Consumer Welfare Fund and Rs.25,000/- as costs.
1. The gist of the complaint in brief is as follows:
The 1st complainant's daughter one K. Ilakkiya studying in the 6th standard in the 1st opposite party's school and when the 1st complainant went to the school on 11.09.2013, he was informed for the 6 th standard school fees for the year 2013-14 is determined for Rs.30,000/- and shall be payable at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per term and thereby shocked for the same by paying Rs.3000/- only, the complainant informed that he would pay the balance subsequently and the 1st opposite has to collect only the school fees as determined by the Justice S.R. Singaravel Committee for the year 2013-14 only for Rs.7500 and Rs.8550/- as per the slab against which the 1st opposite party collected the amount from the students likewise the opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 are also collecting excess than the fees as per the Committee fixed amount and also the 4th opposite party collected the excess amount for the 7th standard student and in spite of the complaint given to the 7th opposite party they have not taken any steps against the opposite parties since the collecting excess fees other than determined amount fixed by the Justice S.R. Singaravelan Committee would amount to unfair trade practice against whom the opposite parties 5, 6 and 7 having control over 4 them had not taken any steps would amount to deficiency in service and thereby they have added as parties in the complaint and praying for direction to the 1 st opposite party to collect fees only as per the Justice S.R. Singaravel Committee determined fees and directing the opposite parties 1 to 4 to refund the amount collected in advance for the 2nd and 3rd term more than the fees fixed by the committee for the year 2013-14 and to refund the same to the concerned students and also directing the opposite parties not to collect further fees as already they have collected excess fees in the first term fees and also direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the State Consumer Welfare Fund as punitive damages and Rs.25,000/- as costs.
2. The opposite parties 5 to 7 not appeared before this Commission against whom the complainant had not taken steps for their appearance and thereby the complaint against them is dismissed for default without costs on 19.08.2014.
3. The opposite parties 1 to 4 have filed their written version in common in which they, denying the allegations of the complainant contended that the 1st complainant's daughter is not a consumer in respect of the opposite parties 2 to 4 and there is no privity of contract in any manner between them and has no authority to maintain the complaint as against the opposite parties 2 to 4. The 2nd complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint as neither a consumer nor availing any privity of contract with the opposite parties 1 to 4. There is no registered voluntary organisation with the name Manavalan, who is the 2nd 5 complainant in person. The 2nd complainant himself using the name as Consumer and Human Rights Protection Council by registering under the Registration Act and as per the Amended Societies Act, having no words of Human Rights Protection as part as its name society registered with the Registrar of Societies and having the members of Human Rights Protection as part of its name shall within six months thereon change the name and register the society with any other name, after deleting the words. The 2nd complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint against the opposite parties 1 to 4 and no public interest is affected or involved in this case. The averment of the complainant that the opposite parties are collecting excess fee above the determined fees would amount to unfair trade practice and claim punitive damages are all denied as false and since the order of the committee was not final. Many schools governing the opposite parties 1 to 4 have made representations to reconsider the fees structure and they are under scrutiny by the above committee hence the fees structure obtained through the website is not conclusive or final. The complainants have referred only the educational fees fixed by the committee apart from this for the regular education imparted in the schools, has authorised the school authorities' the right to collect the fees for special kind or education imparted through smart classes, Hindi and computer classes., etc.,. and to collect actual amount for supply of books, uniform materials, drawing materials, etc., and the authorities authorised to collect a sum of Rs.11,000/- per annum per student as bus fees from these students who were residing within the radius of 6 6 kilometres from the school and availing the school bus facilities and Rs.13,000/- from those residing beyond the 6 kilo meters. The complainants suppressed these materials wantonly. The allegation that the tuition fees for the 6th standard for the year 2013-2014 fixed at Rs.30,000/- payable in three terms with Rs.10,000/- each are all false. The complainant's daughter was earlier admitted and pursued her studies till 10.09.2013 in Capron Hall Higher Secondary School, Madurai and discontinued her studies there and requested the 1st opposite party for admission and taking sympathy of the education of small child admitted her on humanitarian ground. The 1st opposite party explained the 1st complainant and his wife the total fees consisting of tuition fees along with other fees comes to Rs.10,000/- per year and should pay the entire fee of Rs.10,000/- for the academic year 2013- 2014 and apart from that they must pay the bus fees if they want to avail facilities which is not compulsory and the 1st complainant agreed for the same and paid only Rs.3000/- on the date of admission and at his request, time was granted for paying remaining fees. The allegation that the 1st opposite party collected Rs.10,000/- each from 11th standard and 12th standard students for the 1st term for the year 2013-14 is false and also it is false to state that they have collected excess fees against the fees of Rs.7500/- and Rs.8550/- fixed by the committee. The committee determined the fees as per the table, standard VI to VIII it is to be fixed for Rs.8400/- and the structure shall remain in force for 3 years from 2010-11 to 2012-13 or until further orders of the committee. At the time of admission, only the fees fixed by the Justice.K. Raviraja Pandian fixation 7 alone was in force and accordingly the fees were collected. The 1st opposite party aggrieved by the order of the committee dated 22.04.2013, raised their objections before the committee and after accepting their evidence modified the fees structure and fixed the new fees for the year 2013-14 in which standard VI to VIII, have to collect at Rs.7620/- and subsequently modified the earlier fees structure as Rs.8,500/- for standard VI to VIII and this order is subject to variation and the 1st opposite party can approach the Hon'ble High Court. Even as per the order of the committee, the 1st complainant daughter Ilakkiya is still bound to pay the remaining amount of Rs.5,500/- towards tuition fees and the 1st opposite party is at liberty to collect the other fees for imparting education through technology like smart classes, etc., for supply of uniform, books and note-books and for providing facilities like transport facilities, and she is availing transport facilities and she has not paid so far the other fees than Rs.3000/- paid on 11.09.2013. Hence, there is no truth in the complaint. Regarding the treatment of Ilakkiya's mother and other matters, the 1st complainant gave false complaint to the Police and a case was registered on 05.11.2013 by the mother of the student Ilakkiya. The other allegations against the opposite parties 2 to 4 are all false and having not collected any excess fee from their students, the complainants are not entitled for any relief and as per the committee's fixation, the 1st complainant's daughter studying in VI standard should pay Rs.8500/- towards tuition fees alone having arrear of Rs.5500/- apart from that she has to pay other fees. Without paying normal fees, the 1st complainant or the 8 complainants cannot claim any relief from the court hence the complaint is to be dismissed as vexatious.
4. Both sides have filed their proof affidavits and on the side of the complainant documents Exhibits A1 to A11 were marked and Exhibits B1 to B28 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.
5. The points for consideration are;
(1) Whether the 2nd complainant is not a consumer having no locus standi to file a consumer complaint ?
(2) Whether the opposite parties are practising unfair trade practice by alleging that they are collecting excess fees other than the fees fixed for the education for the period of 2013-2014 as determined by the Justice S.R.Singaravel Committee under the Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fees) Act, 2009? (3) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party as far as the 1st complainant's daughter Ilakkiya's education is concerned by collecting excess fee as alleged? (4) Whether the complainant is entitled for the direction for discharging Rs.25,00,000/- as deficiency in service.? (5) Whether the complainant is entitled for any other direction against the opposite parties. ?
(6) To what relief the complainant is entitled for?
6. Point No.1: In this complaint enquiry, the complainants are arrayed as one R. Karthick as complainant No.1 and one K. Manavalan, the Managing 9 Trustee, South Indian Consumer and Human Rights Protection Council, registered as Consumer Voluntary Organisation at Madurai. The 1st complainant having grievances against the opposite party-1 regarding the school fees collected towards his minor daughter who was studying VI standard in the 1st opposite party school for the year 2013-2014 and the 1st complainant, father of K. Ilakkiya, along with the 2nd complainant filed the complaint contending under section 2(1)
(b) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, entitled to file the complaint in which it is defined as " any voluntary consumer organisation registered under the Companies Act or under any other law for the time being in force" means as a complainant and thereby the 2nd complainant claims right as complainant. Whereas under
section 12(c), it is pointed out one or more consumers where there are numerous consumers having the same interest with the permission of District Forum and on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all consumers so interested shall file a complaint under section 12 ( c) of the Act. In this case, the 2nd complainant having pleaded as a consumer and filed the complaint as a Managing Trustee of the Society and not filed the complaint on behalf of the society and no document was filed to prove the registration of their society as recognised one as per the provision under section 2 (1) b (ii). Further, he had not obtained any permission to file the complaint under section 12 (c) of the Consumer Protection Act from this Commission before filing the complaint. The opposite parties 1 to 4 raised their objections in their written version, in para 8 contending that the 2nd complainant claiming as the registered voluntary consumer organisation and hence he has the 10 authority to file the complaint under section 2 (i) (b) (ii) on behalf of other affected consumers is denied as false. Firstly, there is no registered voluntary organisation with the name Manavalan who is shown as the 2nd complainant and hence he cannot file the present complainant and even otherwise if the South Indian Consumer and Human Rights Council is conceded to be the 2nd complainant then in that case also that council is incompetent to file the present complaint. As per the same, the 2nd complainant failed to prove that the alleged organisation is functioning with the name of Manavalan as Managing Trustee and also even if otherwise, the South Indian Consumer and Human Rights Protection Council, as Voluntary Organisation considered to be the 2nd complainant and in that case also, the council is incompetent to represent the present complaint as per section 3 of the Amended Act 2010 of the Societies Registration Act and thereby this contention of the opposite parties 1 to 4 are acceptable and we decide that the complaint filed by the 2nd complainant is not a complaint under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act and the 2nd complainant is not having locus standi to file the complaint on behalf of the 1st complainant and thereby the point is answered accordingly.
7. Point Nos. 2 to 4: In this complaint enquiry, the 1st complainant's only grievance is that the opposite parties 1 to 4 are collecting excess fee from their students studied in the school for the year 2013-2014 than the prescribed fee by the Justice S.R. Singaravel Committee and thereby alleging that they are practicing unfair trade practice and for this the opposite parties 1 to 4 in their 11 written version having contended that they have not collected any excess fee as far as the fee fixed by the Justice S.R. Singaravel Committee is not a conclusive one and therefore objection raised by the affected schools and the orders being modified by the committee by considering their objections and in this case, the 1st opposite party has already raised the objections regarding the fees fixed by the Justice.S.R. Singaravel Committee for the year 2013-2014 and relied upon the documents under Exhibits B1 to B4, B20 and B21 and while considering all these documents under Exhibits B20 and B3, the Hon'ble Justice S.R. Singaravel Committee modified the structure of the fees for the classes as LKG & UKG Rs.5000/-, I - V Rs.6500/-, VII - VIII Rs.7620/-, IX - X Rs.8500/-, XI - XII Rs.11000/- and as per these revised new fees for the classes VI - VIII, they are entitled to collect Rs.7620/- and apart from the educational fees which includes other fees for imparting education through technology like smart classes, etc., for the supply of uniform, books and note-books and for providing facilities like transport facilities and thereby the fees fixed by Justice S.R. Singaravel Committee is also not final one and questioning the same they have also moved before the Hon'ble High Court by filing writ petition as per Ex B20 which is pending and also filed copies of fee fixation for other opposite parties 3 and 4 in Exhibits B24 and 26 and B 27 and in this case other than the 1 st complainant's daughter Ilakkiya who was studying in VI standard in 1st opposite party school as far as the opposite parties 2 to 4 are concerned, even though the complainant had filed fee receipts of certain students under Exhibits A4 to A6 no affidavits 12 from the concerned students or their parents have been filed and there is no record to prove that this fees collected under Exhibits B3 to B6 are part of the payment or entire fees towards education for the academic year 2013-2014 not at all proved by any accepting materials and as far as the opposite parties 2 to 4 are concerned, complainants are not having any privity of contract or as consumers and service provider relationship and as far as the 1st complainant's daughter is concerned, the complainant contended that as per Exhibit A1, he had obtained fees structure details for the period from 2013 to 2016 and as per the same for the 1st opposite party school is concerned, for the VI standard, fee has been fixed as follows; for the year 2013 - 2014 Rs.6500/-, 2014-2015 Rs.7150/-, 2015-2016 Rs.7865/- and according to the same, it is alleged that the 1st opposite party has not collected the fees but the complainant had filed the receipts under Exhibits A2 and A3 in which it is found that the 1st complainant paid a sum of Rs.3000/- under Ex A2 on 11.09.2013 as tuition fees and under Ex A3 Rs.10,000/- as Admission fee & Tuition fees on 16.06.2013 for XII Standard computer in which the name of the student not found and under Exhibits A4 and A5 are concerned other parties' school fees and we are not concerned and concerned students are not parties before this enquiry and as far as the complainant is concerned except a fees of Rs.3000/- paid under Ex A2 no other fee was paid for the year 2013- 2014 and also admitted that the 1st complainant daughter was admitted in the 1st opposite party school during the month of September 2013-2014 after the transfer from Capron Hall Higher Secondary School as per Exhibit B5 in VI 13 standard by obtaining Transfer Certificate on 06.09.2013 and it is clear in the middle of the academic year she was admitted with the 1st opposite party school as per the application under Ex B6. Even before that the complainant had sent a letter to the Metric School Inspector (7th opposite party) dated 05.08.2013 alleging that the 1st opposite party demanded for further sum of Rs.7000/- for the 1st term and another sum of Rs.10,000/- each for 2nd and 3rd term and to take action for the same and this letter was filed as Ex B8 on the side of the opposite parties and the same has also been marked as Ex A8 and in this letter, it is seen that even before getting admission of his child Ilakkiya at the 1st opposite party school, in the month of September 2013, in the month of August 2013 itself this letter has been sent to the opposite party-7 and it would reveal that the 1st complainant even before getting admission for his daughter in the 1 st opposite party school, purposely prepared this letter and sent to the opposite party-7. Further, the opposite parties have filed documents under Exhibits B11 to B18, the publication of news materials against the opposite parties in the news paper relating to the alleged collection of excess fee and also filing of the complaint before the State Commission in Tamil version as per Exhibits B11 and B12 and in the "Consumer Today" magazine also regarding the case filed against the opposite parties and the 1st complainant's wife filed a complaint against the school Correspondent as per Exhibit B14 before the Police alleging some allegations against the collection of excess fee and the complaint filed by the principal against the 1st complainant under Exhibit B18 along with a letter 14 addressed to the District Collector narrating the circumstances and the complaint against the 1st complainant by one Isakkiyammal, teacher regarding the trouble caused by the 1st complainant at the school premises on 09.02.2014 and all those things would go to show that the 1st complainant having some grudge against the 1st opposite party regarding the treatment for his daughter Ilakkiya in collection of fees and even without paying the prescribed fee of Rs.8500/- admitted by the complainant only paying Rs.3000/-alone come forward with this complaint and we are of the view that the complainants have failed to prove that the 1 st opposite party and other opposite parties 2 to 4 have collected excess fee than the fee prescribed by Justice S.R. Singaravel Committee for the year 2013-2014 and thereby they are adopting unfair trade practice was not at all proved and further it is stated that the 1st complainant already obtained Transfer Certificate for his daughter Ilakkiya on 04.06.2014 without continuing the same school for the year 2013-2014 and for which also even without paying prescribed fees for the same as demanded by the 1st opposite party and through this Commission by passing an order in M.P.No.29/2014 dated 02.06.2014, he got the Transfer Certificate for his daughter, Ilakkiya and in those circumstances nothing survives in this complaint as against the 1st opposite party and also the opposite parties 2 to 4 and these point are answered accordingly.
8. Point No.5: In view of the findings of the above point Nos. 2 & 3, the complainants are not entitled for any relief or direction as prayed in the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complaint as against 15 the opposite parties 5, 6 and 7 was already dismissed for default for not taking steps against them on 19.08.2014 and as far as the opposite parties 1 to 4 are concerned, in view of the findings of the above points, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not proved.
9. Point No.6: As far as the deposit of Rs.5000/- is concerned made by the 1st complainant in getting Transfer Certificate of the 1st complainant's daughter as per the order passed in M.P.No.29/2014 dated 02.06.2014, the 1st opposite party is entitled to get the same as the 1st complainant has not paid any other amount except for the initial payment of Rs.3000/- and the 1st opposite party is entitled for the collection of remaining amount towards the tuition fees for the academic year 2013-2014 at the rate of Rs.8550/- and with this observation, the complaint to be dismissed as not proved.
10. In the result, the complaint is dismissed as not proved. No order as to costs.
Sd/-xxxxxxxxx Sd/-xxxxxxxxx
M. MURUGESAN, A.K. ANNAMALAI,
MEMBER. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
ANNEXURE
List of Complainant Documents
Ex.A1 ---- The particulars of school fees determined by the
Committees for Fixation of Matriculation schools.
Ex.A2 11.09.2013 The receipt for payment of school fees paid by K.Ilakkiya.
Ex.A3 14.06.2013 The receipt issued by the 1st opposite party
for collection of fees.
16
Ex.A4 20.05.2013 The receipt issued by the 2nd opposite party for collection of fees.
Ex.A5 03.09.2013 The receipt issued by the 3rd opposite party for collection of fees.
Ex.A6 01.06.2013 The receipt issued by the 4th opposite party for collection of fees.
Ex.A7 20.07.2013 Reply received by R.T.I.Act.
Ex.A8 05.08.2013 Copy of complaint sent by the complainant to 7th opposite Party.
Ex.A9 12.11.2013 Suo mutto order against order on objection dated 23.08.2013.
Ex.A10 12.03.2014 Tamilnadu Matriculation Schools Director's procedures Na.ka.No.1009/B4/2014, dated 12.03.2014.
Ex.A11 20.12.2013 Case No.8533/2013 - Letter No.15458/ by state Human Rights Commission, Tamilnadu.
List of Opposite Parties Documents Ex.B1 03.06.2011 Order passed by Honourable Mr.Justice K.Paviraja Pandian fixing the fees for 1st Respondent.
Ex.B2 22.04.2013 Order passed by Honourable Mr.Justice S.R. Singharavelu Fixing the fees for 1st Respondent.
Ex.B3 23.08.2013 Order passed by Honourable Mr.Justice S.R. Singharavelu Fixing the fees for 1st Respondent.
Ex.B4 12.11.2013 Order passed by Honourable Mr.Justice S.R. Singharavelu Fixing the fees for 1st Respondent.
Ex.B5 06.09.2013 Transfer certificate of Minor K. Ilakkiya. Ex.B6 11.09.2013 Application Form submitted by Minor K.Ilakkiya. Ex.B7 26.08.2013 Medical certificate issued for minor K.Ilakkiya. Ex.B8 05.08.2013 Letter sent by 1st Petitioner to Inspector of Matric Schools. 17 Ex.B9 20.07.2013 Reply given under R.T.I. Act to the 1st Petitioner. Ex.B10 25.02.2014 Memo filed by the 1st complainant in M.P.No.06/2014 In C.C.No.22/2013.
Ex.B11 04.10.2013 In paper news issued by the complainant. Ex.B12 05.10.2013 In Dinathanthi paper news issued by the complainant. Ex.B13 Nov.2013 News published in the Consumer Today's.
Ex.B14 05.11.2013 First Information Report.
Ex.B15 07.11.2013 Letter sent by the complainant's wife to the 1st opposite
Party.
Ex.B16 12.11.2013 Letter sent by the complainant's wife to the 1st opposite
Party.
Ex.B17 06.02.2014 Letter given by one Manimegalai, Teacher to the
1st opposite party.
Ex.B18 10.02.2014 Leave letter given by Manimegalai, Teacher to the
Principal of the 1st opposite party school.
Ex.B19 07.02.2014 Explanation letter sent to the Inspector of Matriculations
Schools by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.B20 14.04.2014 Copy of proof affidavit filed by the 1st opposite party in
W.P.No.4817/201 before the Hon'ble High Court Madras, Madura Bench.
Ex.B21 22.04.2013 Order passed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.R.Singharavelu, Fixing the fees for 2nd respondent.
Ex.B22 28.06.2013 Group Insurance Policy taken by the 2nd respondent for Students and staff working in school.
Ex.B23 --- Tabular column showing the fees collected by the 2nd Respondent from its students for the entire academic Year 2013-14.
18Ex.B24 21.03.2013 Direction issued by the committee to the 3rd opposite party school.
Ex.B25 --- Tabular column showing the fees collected by the 3rd respondent from its students for the entire Academic year 2013-14.
Ex.B26 18.04.2013 Direction issued by the committee to the 4th opposite party school.
Ex.B27 18.09.2013 Direction issued by the determination committee since the 4th opposite party school raised objection.
Ex.B28 ---- Tabular column showing the fees collected by the 3rd Respondent from its students for the entire Academic year 2013-14.
Sd/-xxxxxxxxx Sd/-xxxxxxxxx M. MURUGESAN, A.K. ANNAMALAI, MEMBER. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER. INDEX: YES / NO TCM/Mdu Bench/Orders- 2015/April