Grievance Officer

  • Home
  • About Us
  • IT Law
  • Grievance Officers
  • Contact Us

Who is Consumer ?

July 12, 2012 By Legal Solutions

Who is a Consumer ? 
It is necessary to satisfy the definition of a Consumer, for any person to take any action under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

According to Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, “consumer” means any person who—
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly prom­ised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who ‘hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;

In short, a consumer is a person who buys or hires any goods or services for a consideration. That is, either you can be Consumer/Buyer of Goods or Consumer/Buyer for Services.
Therefore, you are a ‘Consumer’:
1. If you have paid for the purchase of goods or hiring of services, i.e. free services are not covered under the Act. Though they have been purchased on credit or partly paid or in installment. And it includes beneficiary/user of goods.
2. Secondly, it excludes a person who buys or hires for commercial purpose/activity and not for self-consumption.
But if you have paid for anything for self consumption, and not hired or purchased for selling it further or to be deployed in a commercial activity on a large scale, then you would still be a ‘Consumer’ as was held in Laxmi Engineering Works vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute on 4 April, 1995.

Filed Under: Consumer Guide

Reliance Mobile V Hari Chand Gupta – Punitive Damages for False Affidavit

July 10, 2012 By Legal Solutions

In the following matter, National commission pronounced punitive/ exemplary damages against Reliance India Mobile (now Reliance Communication) of Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand (1,50.000) for making false statement under affidavit before the court.
Though in such cases criminal proceedings under section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code can also be initiated, as Consumer Court/Forums are empowered in such matters as per the Section 13 (5) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, but in this particular case as evidence existed before the filing of the said case, therefore only punitive damages were awarded and no criminal proceedings were initiated.
This landmark judgment can be used as an authoritative precedent in a consumer case either with Consumer forum/Consumer court at District Level or State Level. Because in most of the matter, one or the other party is used to making lies under affidavit for defending against huge compensation.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CIRCUIT BENCH AT BANGALORE
REVISION PETITION No. 53 of 2006
(From the order dated 22.8.2005 Appeal No. 155 of 2005 of the State Commission, Chandigarh, U.T.)
Reliance India Mobile Ltd.
Through its authorised Signatory … Petitioner
Versus
Hari Chand Gupta
Pipli Road, Kurukshetra-136118 … Respondent
Dated the 8th May, 2006.
O R D E R
M.B. SHAH, J., PRESIDENT
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.2005 passed in Appeal No. 155 of 2005 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, Petitioner – M/s. Reliance India Mobile Ltd., has preferred this Revision Petition.
The State Commission confirmed the order dated 29.7.2005 passed by the District Forum-II, Chandigarh, in Consumer Complaint No.1057 of 2004, and imposed Rs.50,000/- as punitive damages with costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-. Further, the District Forum vide its order dated 29.7.2005 passed in Complaint No. 1057 of 2004, directed the Petitioner to shift the mobile telephone of the Complainant from Chandigarh to Kurukshetra region and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and costs of Rs.2,500/-. In default, the Petitioner was also to pay interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the awarded amount.
Against the order of the State Commission, the Petitioner has filed this Revision Petition before this Commission. However, the State Commission further ordered for initiation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner, particularly, its authorised signatory, Shri Padamjit Singh, on the ground that he has filed a false reply and affidavit. For that purpose, the State Commission has ordered inquiry to be made by the District Forum under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. read with Sections 195 Cr.P.C. for the offences alleged to have been committed under Section 191, 192, 193 I.P.C., and to take action against the authorised signatory, if found guilty.
At the time of hearing of this Revision Petition, learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Man Mohan, has confined his submission only with regard to initiation of proceeding to Sec. 340 Cr.P.C. It is his contention that the direction given by the State Commission is without jurisdiction, because, at the time of admission of the appeal, the State Commission had issued notice for the limited purpose of enhancement of compensation. The said order reads as under:
“The sole grievance of the Appellant in this appeal is regarding the compensation awarded being grossly inadequate and the Appellant prays for enhancement of the compensation. The appeal is confined to the quantum of compensation. Issue notice on this limited point to the Respondent for 3.10.2005. Record of the Complaint Case be requisitioned from District Forum – II, U.T., Chandigarh in triplicate.”
Complaint:
These proceedings arose from the complaint filed by the Respondent contending that he is a resident of Kurukshetra Nursing Home, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra, Haryana. On 8.3.2003, he had applied for obtaining a connection of Reliance India Mobile Phone as a member of Dhirubhai Ambani Pioneer Club, by paying full amount of Rs.21,000/- by Cheque drawn on Punjab State Cooperative Bank, Chandigarh. As per the scheme, the Complainant was to receive cell phone through courier at his Chandigarh address. It is his contention that the Complainant was required to shift his residence from Chandigarh to Kurukshetra for health reasons. For this purpose, he visited the office of the Petitioner at Chandigarh and filled up the form meant for shifting of mobile phone to his new Kurukshetra address. For this purpose, he has also sent an e-mail on 8.5.2003 giving intimation of change of address from Chandigarh to Kurukshetra.
By letter dated 10.4.2003 the Petitioner intimated the Complainant that they had extended the period of free usage of mobile phone upto 30.4.2003. However, the Complainant received a bill dated 1.5.2003 at his Chandigarh address for the period from 1.4.2003 to 30.4.2003, for a sum of Rs.224/-.
It is also contended that till the date of filing of the complaint, the connection of the mobile phone was not shifted from Chandigarh to Kurukshetra, and hence, he was not able use the same since May, 2003 till date. He has also relied upon the brochure (The Mobile Revolution – Dhirubhai Ambani Pioneer Offer – Customer care at your service any time and after sales-service to all promising very good service) issued by the Petitioner giving advertisement.
It is his contention that the promises made in the brochure were not fulfilled and the Complainant was required to suffer a lot. Therefore, a notice was sent on 9.9.2003 at the Mumbai Office of the Petitioner. Yet, no action was taken.
It is further submitted that the Complainant was doing share business and has invested in shares through V.R.S. Securities Ltd., Ludhiana and for this purpose, he is required to keep in touch with the share broker to update himself with regard to the share market and for this purpose, he has taken the telephone. Because of the deficiency in service by the Petitioner he had suffered monetary and financial loss.
He, therefore, prayed that the Petitioner be directed to shift the mobile phone connection of the Complainant from Chandigarh to Kurukshetra and to give all benefits which would have been accrued to the Complainant during the period from May, 2003, as non-user of the mobile. He has also prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from May 2003, and the cost of litigation.
Findings:
A. Section 340 of Cr.P.C.
As stated above,(a) this complaint was partly allowed by the District Forum. It was held that as no shifting of telephone from Kurikshetra Region to Chandigarh Region was made, it was a case of proven negligence and deficiency in service. The District Forum, therefore, directed the Petitioner to shift the mobile phone and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation with costs at Rs.2,500/-.
(b) The appeal was filed by the Complainant only for enhancement of compensation. That appeal was partly allowed. The State Commission had not enhanced the compensation, but has awarded Rs.50,000/- as punitive damages and the cost of appeal was quantified at Rs.5,000/-.
From the facts stated above, it is amply clear that the State Commission has issued notice for the limited purpose, that too, only for enhancement of compensation. Compensation, as stated above, was enhanced. In such set of circumstances, there was no question of directing District Forum to hold inquiry under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and to initiate proceedings. As such, no ground is made out for holding such inquiry. It appears that there were some mistakes in giving computerised bills, with regard to due date of payment, etc. But, that would hardly be a ground for arriving at a conclusion that the said bills were fabricated. However, it is not in dispute that in affidavit, incorrect statement has been made to the effect that mobile connection of the complainant was transferred from Chandigarh to Kurukshetra and a new No. i.e. 01744-311784 was allotted. Admittedly, new number was given as stated above, but it was not transferred from Chandigarh to Kurukshetra.
The Petitioner has also produced on record some bills for the use of the telephone were also unjustified. In any case, those bills were given to the Complainant prior to filing of the complaint. In such cases, if the Complainant was aggrieved, he ought to have filed a criminal complaint, if at all he considered the said facts to be offence.
Further, normally, in such type of cases it would be futile to initiate proceedings under Sec.340 of Cr.P.C. Law on this subject is settled by a decision of the larger Bench of the Apex Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Marwan & Anr. (2005) 4 SCC 370 wherein it is observed that“Judicial notice could be taken of the fact that the courts are normally reluctant to direct filing of a criminal complaint and such a course is rarely adopted”.
Further, after considering various decisions, the Court in pr.23 held as under:
23. In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the section is conditioned by the words “court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice”. This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. The broad view of clause (b)(ii), as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants, would render the victim of such forgery or forged document remediless. Any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of a crime is rendered remediless, has to be discarded.
Finally it is held (in para.33) that Section 195(1)(b)(ii), Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis.
In the present case, the alleged bills were all throughout in existence even prior to the filing of the complaint. Therefore, it was open to the Complainant to file a private complaint, if aggrieved.
However, for filing false and incorrect affidavit before the Consumer Fora that the telephone was shifted from Chandigarh to Kurukshetra, appropriate action is required to be taken against the petitioner.

It should be borne in mind that Consumer Fora are required to decide the matter speedily and render equitable justice to the consumer. The practice of making false and incorrect statements and the practice of denial of each and every sentence submitted by the claimant/complainant without any justifiable ground, requires to be controlled. For false affidavits or misleading statements in a pending proceedings deponents are required to be dealt appropriately by imposing punitive damages so that in future they or others may not indulge in such practice.

 
In this view of the matter, punitive damages are required to be enhanced.
B. Punitive Damages:
Complainant who is appearing in person submitted that punitive damages of Rs.50,000/- are totally inadequate. For the wrongs done by such a big company, adequate compensation/punitive damages ought to have been awarded.
It is true that adequate compensation is required to be awarded in appropriate cases. It is also true that the Complainant moved from Chandigarh to Kurukshetra. For this purpose, he had applied for shifting of his telephone from Chandigarh region to Kurukshetra region. For some unknown reason, that was not done. There are also some errors with regard to the issuance of computerised bill. As stated above, false statement has been made in the affidavit that phone of the complainant was shifted from Chandigarh region to Kurukshetra region. On this ground, the State Commission has directed the Petitioner to pay Rs.50,000/- as punitive damages. In our view, for making such false statement in the affidavit by the officer of the Reliance Infocomm Ltd. – Petitioner, the amount is not sufficient. Punitive damages are required to be enhanced so that in future officers of the Petitioner nor officers of other such big companies indulge in such practices.
Hence, we increase the said punitive damages to Rs.1,50,000/- . Out of this amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- shall be deposited with this Commission for depositing the same with Consumer Welfare Fund and Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to the Complainant. In addition, Petitioner shall pay to the Complainant Rs.10,000/- compensation and also Rs.2500/- as costs of litigation as awarded by the District Forum and also Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation in the appeal before the State Commission.
In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is partly allowed. The direction of the State Commission regarding initiating inquiry under Sec.340 Cr.P.C. against Padamjit Singh is set aside. The order passed by the State Commission imposing punitive damages is modified. The Petitioner is directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as punitive damages. Out of that amount, Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to the complainant and remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be deposited with this Commission for depositing the same with Consumer Welfare Fund. There shall be no order as to costs. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
……………………………….J.
(M.B.SHAH)
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
…………………………………
(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO)
MEMBER

Filed Under: Consumer Courts, Landmark Judgments

Consumer Court Decisions 2012 – Part 2

May 1, 2012 By Legal Solutions

Mobile company fined over global roaming
A consumer forum imposed a fine of Rs 18,000 on a mobile service provider for having failed to activate international roaming service for one of its customers, despite the customer having paid the deposit amount.
The Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held Vodafone Essar Ltd guilty of deficiency of service and directed it to pay Omprakash Bhadada (56) Rs 15,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs 3,000 towards costs.
@ http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-04-25/mumbai/31398131_1_consumer-forum-provider-deposit-amount
Consumer forum directs immigration firm to refund money
Jalandhar district consumer disputes redressal forum has directed World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited (WWICS) to refund Rs. 50,000 to a city resident for deficiency in service. The forum also ordered payment of Rs. 5,000 to complainant Veena as compensation and litigation
expenses.
@ http://www.hindustantimes.com/Punjab/Jalandhar/Consumer-forum-directs-immigration-firm-to-refund-money/SP-Article1-847701.aspx
Reliance Insurance to pay Rs 88K for denying cashless service
The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd has been ordered by a consumer forum to pay over Rs 88,000 to a mediclaim policy holders for its failure to facilitate cashless service to him for his daughter’s surgery.
@ http://www.indianexpress.com/news/reliance-insurance-to-pay-rs-88k-for-denying-cashless-service/943437/
Forum tells state power firm to recalculate bills
After hearing a complaint that energy bills were wrongly calculated, the consumers’ grievances redressal forum (CGRF), Nashik, has ordered MSEDCL, the state electricity distribution company, to recalculate bills based on average metered units prior to the duration in question.
@ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nashik/Forum-tells-state-power-firm-to-recalculate-bills/articleshow/12929595.cms
Consumer forum asks builder to pay Rs 9.27 lakh to couple
A Delhi consumer forum has ordered a realtor to pay Rs 9.27 lakh to a couple, saying it cheated them by taking the booking amount for a flat but did not even begin the construction despite considerable lapse of time. The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, headed by C K Chaturvedi, held AJS Builders guilty of cheating the couple and rendering deficient service to them. “We hold the opposite party (builder) guilty of total deficiency, cheating and causing disappointment to the complainants and not refunding the money collected from the complainants,” the forum said.
@ http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/consumer-forum-asks-builder-to-pay-rs-927-lakh-to-couple/992046.html
Consumer forum fines builder for misleading it
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has imposed a fine on a builder in the city for concealing facts and furnishing wrong information to the Commission.
The Commission asked Narendra Sodhi of N K Sodhi and Company to pay Rs 10,000 to each of 20 complainants – the petitions were filed separately – who had in 2008 approached the district forum, the lowest of the three-tier forum, in Mumbai against him.
@ http://www.indianexpress.com/news/consumer-forum-fines-builder-for-misleading-it/942944/
Jet Airways to pay Rs 71K compensation
Jet Airways has been ordered by a consumer forum here to pay over Rs 71,000 as compensation to a family of four for not communicating their food preference to the connecting airline and making them go hungry for over 10 hours during their flight to Toronto from London.
@ http://www.indianexpress.com/news/jet-airways-to-pay-rs-71k-compensation/938368/
Reliance Com to pay Rs 6,000 damages
Reliance Communications will have to cough up Rs 6,000 towards damages to a city-based practising advocate for deficiency in services.
The district consumer court in its recent order directed the service provider to pay Rs 5,000 towards the mental trauma, and physical and financial losses incurred by Subhash Kharat and Rs 1,000 as litigation expenses.
@ http://www.indianexpress.com/news/reliance-com-to-pay-rs-6-000-damages/938831/
Consumer Forum asks Delhi police to file cheating case against Kotak
The district forum also asked Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance to pay Rs1 lakh as compensation to its customer, a retired Army officer for selling a wrong insurance-linked saving policy by signing the proposal form
http://www.moneylife.in/article/consumer-forum-asks-delhi-police-to-file-cheating-case-against-kotak/25079.html
‘Wrong interpretation of the law by Consumer Forum’
The Mysore District Consumer Forum recently dismissed (13-7-11 in Case No. 1070/2010) a complaint filed by a consumer. It appears to be based on a wrong interpretation of the Consumer Protection Act.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/243846/wrong-interpretation-law-consumer-forum.html
Travel blues: Tourists get operator to cough up
Eight months after they filed a complaint with the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, five members of a tour group from the city were awarded compensation for the mental agony they suffered during a tour of Israel because of an inept tour operator.
The group of five included the former principal chief conservator of forests of the state, N.V. Ramachandra Chetty, and film producer Anitha Pattabhiram. Now, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed the tour operators to pay each of them compensation of `50,000. The package tour of Israel was organised by Mumbai-based SOTC World Famous Tours in July 2011. Immediately after they landed at Tel Aviv airport, the tour operator took away their passports, and they were unable to go anywhere even in their free time.
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/cities/bengaluru/travel-blues-tourists-get-operator-cough-622
Kingfisher asked to pay Rs 12,000 to passenger
Kingfisher Airlines has been ordered by a Delhi district consumer forum to pay Rs 12,000 to one of its passengers for booking him on a non-operational flight and telling it only when he went to the airport to catch it.
The New Delhi District Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum ordered the airlines to pay the compensation to Delhi resident RP Singh, while holding it guilty of rendering deficient service and harassing him.
@ http://ibnlive.in.com/news/kingfisher-asked-to-pay-rs-12000-to-passenger/252388-7.html
Sony to pay customer Rs 19,000
Sony Electronics has been ordered by a Delhi district consumer forum to pay Rs 18,900 to a customer for selling him a faulty music system.
Observing that the product “had some inherent defect” and was not a “marketable good”, the North Delhi District Consumer Forum directed Sony to refund its customer the cost of the music system.
@ http://www.indianexpress.com/news/sony-to-pay-customer-rs-19-000/941463/
Consumer body asks SBI to pay compensation
The district consumer disputes redressal forum has ordered the State Bank of India to provide compensation to the complainant who had taken loan from the bank for buying a house, but, could not get the original document even after paying back the loan.
@ http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-04-25/lucknow/31398508_1_complainant-loan-state-bank
Insufficient funds can’t ‘dishonor’ cheque
Merely saying ‘insufficient funds’ cannot be a valid reason for banks to dishonor a cheque, unless it is explained what amount would have been sufficient to honour it, a consumer forum has held.
The Central Delhi District Consumer Forum ruled it while ordering ICICI Bank to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation to a customer for dishonoring her cheque of Rs one lakh on grounds of insufficient funds in her account, despite the same having more than rs one lakh in it.
@ http://www.indianexpress.com/news/insufficient-funds-cant-dishonor-cheque/940895/
Stolen car: ICICI Lombard to pay Rs 6.3L
ICICI Lombard General Insurance has been directed by a consumer forum here to pay Rs 6.3 lakh to a policy holder for refusing to reimburse his loss after the theft of his car.
The New Delhi District Consumer Forum order the ICICI Lombard to compensate the policy holder saying that the firm had failed to justify the rejection of the claim, as it did not file a formal reply to the complaint or a copy of the policy rules on basis of which it had refused to pay him.
@ http://www.indianexpress.com/news/stolen-car-icici-lombard-to-pay-rs-6.3l/940394/
Gurdaspur: Consumer Court asks insurance company to pay claim of Rs 11.5 Lakhs
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur consisting of Sanjay Garg, President, Raj Kumar and Jagdeep Kaur,as its members in a recent judgment has directed the National Insurance Co. to pay the insurance claim of Rs.11,50,000/-alongwith interest at the rate ff 12 percent per annum to R.S.Transport Co. Limited, Pathankot on account of theft of the insured vehicle of the complainant.
@ http://www.punjabnewsline.com/content/gurdaspur-consumer-court-asks-insurance-company-pay-claim-rs-1150000/43580

Filed Under: Consumer Cases

Speak Asia Deposits $10 million with Supreme Court of India

February 27, 2012 By Legal Solutions

The order dated 23 February 2012 is as follows, whereby Speak Asia has deposited the amount as per the order of the Supreme Court of India.
“SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 383 OF 2011
SOLOMON JEMES & ORS.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(With application for impleadment, directions, stay and office
report)
Date: 23/02/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
In pursuance to the directions of this Court dated 6th February, 2012, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have deposited an amount of US $ 10 million by way of a bank draft bearing DD No. 037002 dated 20th February, 2012 drawn on State Bank of India, Singapore Branch in favour of “The Registrar, Supreme Court of India” in the Registry of this Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that this amount be deposited in a fixed deposit for a period of 91 days initially with the UCO Bank, Supreme Court Compound, on an auto renewal basis.
This request seems to be reasonable and we order accordingly.
We also direct the Secretary General of this Court to invest the amount today itself in the UCO Bank, Supreme Court Compound for a period of 91 days on auto renewal basis.
With these directions, this application stands disposed of. However, it is made clear that the disbursement of the amount would be subject to further orders of this Court.
Learned Additional Solicitor General undertakes to file an Affidavit. She may do so within a period of two weeks.
Reply, if any, thereto be filed within two weeks thereafter.
– Court Master”
source: http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/383201132322012p.txt

Filed Under: Cyber Crime, SpeakAsiaOnline

Nursery School Admissions – Fees Refund Circular by DOE

January 26, 2012 By Legal Solutions

The ongoing school admissions process in Delhi is quite complicated, as a result of flexibility provided to the schools to determine, their own relevant dates as to first list, second list, etc.
As a result many of schools have already come up with the First list for the admissions admitting on first come first serve basis, though many of the reputed schools have still to come up with the first list on 01st February 2012.
But when you have already admitted your child in one school, so what happens if you wish to withdraw admission from the first school and get the child admitted in the other reputed school. Most of the schools lay down that the fees is non-refundable or only 50% of the fees would be refunded.
In this respect, the Department of Education had come up with the circular in Feb 2011, which states as follows:

“The circular issued by the Directorate of Education (DoE), Delhi, said there have been several complaints by parents regarding non-refund of fees and other charges by unaided recognised schools in the event of cancellation of admission.
If any fee is collected from the parents or guardians of a child, whose admission is cancelled…, the entire fee except registration fee charges shall be refunded.
It also said that if the parents chose to withdraw the child from the school within one month from the date of admission, the school shall refund the entire amount of fee or other charges within 15 days of the request made by the parents.
However, the school may retain some fees such as the registration fee, administration fee and one month’s tuition fee, according to the circular.”

Therefore, the most important thing to keep in mind is that withdrawal from first school should happen within 30 days of first admission !!!

Filed Under: Consumer Law, Education

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • …
  • 25
  • Next Page »

Recent Comments

  • Mageshwari Dilip on Grievance Officer at Flipkart
  • Bhramar on Grievance Officer at Flipkart
  • Shaik ammu on Grievance Officer at Flipkart
  • Nandakishor on Grievance Officer at Zomato
  • Humera Khan on Grievance Officer at OnePlus India
  • TERRELL L WARDELL on Contact Us
  • Raj Kumar Gangwar on Grievance Officer at MakeMyTrip
  • Prince on Grievance Officer at Yahoo!
  • Natarajan on Grievance Officer at WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization)
  • Narayana Rao Myneni on Grievance Officer at Amazon India

Copyright © 2025 · Disclaimer · Legal Solutions · Log in