Mumbai: The Mumbai Suburban District’s Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (DCDRC) has ruled against Universal High School, Tilak Nagar, Chembur branch, ordering the school management to cease the practice of demanding the first instalment of fees or similar charges from students before issuing their transfer certificates.
The commission's ruling extends beyond the specific case, mandating that the school should apply this directive to all students seeking transfer certificates. The school has also been strictly ordered to issue the transfer certificate (TC) and Bonafide Certificate of the complainant, Preetam Rajmane’s children, within seven days, without levying any charges.
In addition, the commission directed the school to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation for illegally withholding the documents, causing mental and physical discomfort to the complainant. An additional Rs 10,000 was levied on the school authorities towards the complainant's litigation charges.
Rajmane, in her complaint before the commission stated that she had approached her kid’s school on March 6,2022, to obtain the transfer and bonafide certificates for her two children following her husband's transfer to Pune. However, the school refused to issue the certificates, citing reasons related to its fee policy.
According to the complaint, the school informed Rajmane via email that parents were required to notify the school of such updates by February 28, 2022, failing which the child would be considered as continuing for the next academic year, thereby incurring the subsequent fees for the next term. Rajmane argued that these conditions were unreasonable and caused unnecessary hardship.
After multiple requests for her children’s transfer and bonafide certificates were ignored, Rajmane approached the consumer commission and had filed a complaint against the school for adopting unfair trade practise.
The school in its defence had argued that as an educational institution, it does not provide a service, and therefore, the complaint should not fall under the ambit of a 'consumer' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
While passing its orders, the commission stated, "The fact that the school had taken fees for imparting education to the children means, according to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the complainant very well falls within the ambit of ‘Consumer.’" This reasoning refuted the school’s defense and established that the case could be adjudicated by the consumer commission.
The commission pulled up the school for its coercion tactics, thus accusing the authorities of adopting unfair trade practice. The school was thus held guilty of demanding the first instalment of fees for the next academic year, even though that academic year had not yet begun. The commission, has directed the school to discontinue this practice in all pending and future cases.
The commission has also held the school guilty of deficiency in service for failing to provide the necessary documents within a reasonable time after being notified by the complainant.
