If Student Leaves At Provisional Stage, Schools Must Refund Fee Chandigarh State Commission Holds St. Anne's Convent Liable
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Mrs Padma Pandey (Presiding Member) and Mr Preetinder Singh (Member) held that at the stage of provisional admission, there is lack of a binding contract between the student and the school. Therefore, the student cannot be refused the refund of the provisional fee on leaving the school before a...
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Mrs Padma Pandey (Presiding Member) and Mr Preetinder Singh (Member) held that at the stage of provisional admission, there is lack of a binding contract between the student and the school. Therefore, the student cannot be refused the refund of the provisional fee on leaving the school before a regular admission is finalized.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant's daughter received provisional admission in Class 10+1 at St. Anne's Convent School (“School”) based on Class 10 pre-board results. Subsequently, due to state-specific reservation policies, she opted for a school in Mohali, Punjab. The Complainant requested for refund of the fee paid to the school. The school denied a refund of the fee to the Complainant. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against the school.
In response, the school argued that the admission was accepted after understanding the non-refundable clause. It asserted that the Complainant's daughter availed online classes and occupied a seat which made her ineligible for a refund upon a change of mind. Additionally, it contested the Complainant's claim of eligibility for Punjab's state quota and argued that it applies only to bona fide residents of Punjab.
The District Commission ruled in favour of the Complainant and directed the school to pay Rs. 22,500/- to the Complainant after deducting administrative charges. Feeling aggrieved, the school appealed the decision of the District Commission in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (“State Commission”). It argued that the District Commission erred in entertaining and deciding the complaint, contending that the school is an educational institution, and thus, the Complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer.
Observations by the High Court:
The State Commission noted that the Complainant's daughter secured provisional admission based on her Class 10 pre-board examination results. The remaining fee was pending for the stage of regular admission. It held that until the admission was formalized, the deposit of the provisional amount constituted merely a monetary transaction devoid of any binding contract.
Therefore, the State Commission upheld the decision of the District Commission to order a refund of the admission fee, deducting 10% for administrative charges. It held that the school failed to present any evidence to demonstrate any loss incurred due to the Complainant's daughter vacating the seat for the entire academic year.
However, the contention raised by the school regarding the interest rate of 12% per annum in the event of non-compliance with the order was considered valid by the State Commission. Consequently, the State Commission reduced the interest rate to 6% per annum.