A Hyderabad father has won a consumer dispute against a school after his daughter left Class 11 just four days after joining, with a consumer commission directing the institution to refund the unused fees and pay litigation costs.
According to The Indian Express report, the Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that a student cannot be charged for educational services that were not provided or not availed, and that refusing to refund the fee for the remaining period amounted to an unfair trade practice.
The Indian Express reported that the commission directed the school to refund Rs 58,000, comprising Rs 48,000 in school fees and a Rs 10,000 security deposit, and pay Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs. The total payout comes to Rs 63,000.
The order was passed on September 16 by commission president Vakkanti Narasimha Rao and members P V T R Jawahar Babu and Suma Vala.
Girl leaves school after four days
The Indian Express also reported that the complainant, a 50-year-old man, approached the school after his daughter returned from the US, where she had studied from Class 7 to Class 10. He sought admission for her to Class 11 in the Science stream.
On August 20, 2018, the girl was enrolled and her father paid Rs 10,000 as a security deposit and Rs 48,000 as school fees, The Indian Express reported.
The family also furnished a no-objection certificate relating to her previous schooling in the US, as requested by the school.
However, after attending classes for a few days, the girl allegedly found it difficult to follow the lessons due of differences in the teaching method and presentation compared with the system she had experienced in the US.
The father said he requested the school to provide additional support. He also sought a refund after his daughter discontinued her studies. The school refused the refund, prompting him to approach the consumer commission.
School says education is not a ‘service’
The school opposed the complaint and relied on the Supreme Court’s observation that education is not a commodity. It argued that educational institutions do not provide a “service” within the meaning of consumer law and therefore a claim of deficiency in service could not arise in relation to admission or fees.
The school also pointed out that the father had agreed to its terms and conditions governing the fee structure and had signed the declaration form at the time of admission.
Commission says parents are consumers
The consumer commission rejected the school’s argument. It held that parents pay fees for educational services to be provided by an institution and that where no service is rendered, the question of retaining payment for that service does not arise.
The commission said the complainant had hired the school’s services for consideration and therefore qualified as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
“Imparting education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of ‘service’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act,” the commission observed.
It further held that a student could leave an institution if she was unable to adjust to its teaching methods, including during the academic session.
‘No service provider can charge for service not availed’
The commission said a school or coaching institution should not retain fees for a period during which the student did not attend or receive the educational service.
It held that a service provider cannot charge consideration for a service that it “neither it has provided nor has been availed”.
Referring to the student’s different educational background, the commission observed that a student may leave if she finds the service deficient or unsuitable.
It described the school’s refusal to refund the unused fees as an “unfair trade practice”.
The commission also criticised the practice of retaining fees from students who leave while admitting another candidate to the vacant seat.
“The schools are doubly enriching themselves by admitting another candidate without refunding the fees of a student who has withdrawn their admission in mid-term,” the commission observed.
School ordered to refund Rs 58,000
The commission directed the school to refund Rs 58,000, comprising the Rs 48,000 school fee and Rs 10,000 security deposit.
It also directed the institution to pay Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.
The total amount ordered in favour of the father was therefore Rs 63,000, apart from any applicable interest specified in the order.
Takeaway
The ruling highlights that a school’s no-refund policy does not automatically settle a dispute over fees for educational services that were never availed.
Parents considering withdrawing a child from an institution should preserve admission forms, fee receipts, declarations, correspondence with the school and records of the period for which the student actually attended classes.