State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Geetinder Singh vs Saint Paul'S International School on 20 November, 2012
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHAN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.32 of 2008
Date of institution: 16.01.2008
Date of decision : 20.11.2012
Geetinder Singh (minor) son of Sh. Pritam Singh Bath Advocate son of Shri
Kehar Singh resident of Agar Nagar, Malerkotla through natural guardian
father Sh. Pritam Singh Bath.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. Saint Paul's International School through its Principal, Village Bir,
Ahmedabad, Nabha Road, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
2. Saint Paul's International School through its President, Village Bir,
Ahmedabad, Nabha Road, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 06.12.2007
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal,
Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Argued by:-
For the appellant : Sh.A.K.Garg, Advocate
For the respondents : Sh.S.S.Randhawa, Advocate
JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This is complainant's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 6.12.2007 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short the District Forum) vide which the complaint was dismissed.
2. The contention of Geetinder Singh complainant is that he was admitted in the OP school in 6th class on 9.2.2002 and his father had deposited a sum of Rs.60,000/- under a scheme, in view of which, all the fee and expenditure was to be made by the OP and they were liable to refund the amount of Rs.60,000/- after the First Appeal No.32 of 2008 2 completion of 10th standard or when the child was withdrawn by the end of any scholastic year and shifted to another school. Geetinder Singh withdrew from the OP school after completion of 9th class when Pritam Singh requested for the refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs.60,000/- but the OP-respondents went on putting him off on one pretext or the other. It was contended by the complainant that non-return of the said amount amounts to deficiency in service because the amount was not refunded even inspite of a number of requests made by the complainant. The complainant, therefore, filed the present complaint to direct the OP to refund the amount along with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 1.4.2005 till realisation, to pay Rs.10,000/- on account of damages and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The OP admitted that the complainant was admitted in their school and a sum of Rs.60,000/- was deposited by the complainant which was to be refunded as mentioned by the complainant. Their contention, however, is that the complainant should approach the Civil Court for recovery of the amount and the complaint was barred by time.
4. Both the parties were given opportunity to adduce any evidence in support of their contentions.
5. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 6.12.2007 dismissed the complaint. The complainant has challenged the same through the present appeal.
6. We have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
First Appeal No.32 of 2008 3
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that when the complainant left the school and before the present complaint was filed, the OP was requested a number of times to refund the amount but they had been putting him off on one pretext or the other. This fact is mentioned in para 3 and 4 of the complaint and when we peruse the reply filed by the OP, we find that this contention has not been denied, at all. It, therefore, becomes clear that the complainant had been demanding the amount and the OP had been putting him off on one pretext or the other. The Hon'ble National Commission in case Commissioner, Nagar Palika Nigam, Bhilai v. Rajesh Kumar Shukla, III (2010) CPJ 112 (NC) under similar circumstances held that where the complainant asked for refund of the amount lawfully deposited by the complainant, it will give a continuous cause of action as the OP failed to refund the initial deposit. The contention of the OP that the complaint has become barred by time was over ruled and the refund of the amount was ordered. In another case, Talagang Cooperative G/H Ltd. v. Vandana Sharma, IV (2009) CPJ 161 (NC), a sum of Rs.1 lac was deposited as equalization fee with the Cooperative Society which was not refunded to the complainant. The OP alleged that the complaint is barred by time. In that case also, the refund of the amount was ordered.
8. A similar question arose in case, Ramalingha Sowdambigai Amman v. Coimbatore District Central Co- Operative Bank Ltd. & anr., III (2008) CPJ 507, a deposit was made by the complainant which was not refunded by the OP. When the complaint was filed, an objection was taken that the complaint was barred by time, it was held by the Hon'ble Tamilnadu State First Appeal No.32 of 2008 4 Consumer Commission that since the OPs had promised to settle the claim after a criminal case and had not refused to refund the amount, the complaint cannot be said to be barred by time. In the present case also, this fact has not been denied by the OPs that the complainant had made repeated requests to the OP before the present case was filed to refund the amount but the OP had been putting him off on one pretext or the other. There is no allegation made by the OP if they ever refused to refund the amount and if so, on which date. The cause of action to file the complaint would arise from the date of refusal and, therefore, it was held that the complaint was not barred by time. In another case, Kashiprasad Cotton Pvt. Ltd. v. Kamaladevi Kanhaiyalal Shrawagi & anr. III (2005) CPJ 176, false assurances were given to the complainant who acting on false assurances did not initiate civil action for recovery of the deposited amount. When the complaint was filed, the OP opposed the complaint on the question of limitation. The Hon'ble Maharashtra State Consumer Commission held that if due to the false assurances, the complainant was little bit slow and avoided Court litigation, no blame can be foisted on him because he had pardonable excuse. The delay, if any, was held condonable and the objection that it was barred by time was repelled. In the present case also, the amount remained as a trust with the OP. When the complainant withdrew from the school, it was the duty of the OP to promptly refund the amount. The same was not refunded even inspite of the requests made by the complainant. The cause of action to file the complaint, therefore, cannot be taken from 1.4.2005 when the complainant left the College but it would be on the date when the complaint was filed because on the subsequent First Appeal No.32 of 2008 5 dates when demand to pay the amount was made, the OP started putting him off on one pretext or the other. They did not refuse to pay the amount. However, when the complainant suspected that the OP is not willing to refund the amount he, thereafter, filed the present complaint.
9. The learned counsel for the OP-respondents has referred to several authorities on the question of limitation to say that if the complaint is filed after limitation, it is to be dismissed. There is no dispute with any of the authorities but the question to be determined in the present case is as to from which date the limitation should start and not as to whether a complaint which is barred by time should be allowed or not. These authorities are, therefore, not helpful to him.
10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint was liable to succeed but has been wrongly dismissed. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum. The complaint is, accordingly, allowed and the OP-respondents are directed to return the amount of Rs.60,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum since 1.4.2005 till the amount is actually paid to the complainant. The OP-respondents would also be liable to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation before the learned District Forum and Rs.5000/- before this Commission. If the amount is not paid within 30 days, the OP would be liable to pay the same along with penal interest @ 12% per annum since the filing of the present appeal i.e. 10.1.2008 till the amount is paid. First Appeal No.32 of 2008 6
Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of costs.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER November 20, 2012.
Paritosh