A student filed a complaint against a school for retaining the full fees after he decided not to pursue his studies there. The consumer disputes forum ruled in favor of the student, stating that educational institutions cannot behave like commercial businesses with a profit motive. The school was ordered to refund the admission fee to the student after deducting administrative and processing charges only, as there was no justification for retaining substantial fees once the student decided not to study there. The forum observed that schools are meant for education, not business.

1. Presented By:
Aaruni Shukla(090102001)
Akansha Awasthi(090102003)
Akash Sharma(090102004)
Amriteshwar Pratap Singh(090102007)
Ankit Baliyan(090102008)
Ankit Gupta(090102009) Presented To:
Vishal Kumar(090102087)
Abhishek Pachisia(090102801) Mrs. Shalini Mittal
Group 1 (I.T.)

2. To know what this act is about, we should first know
•Who is a CONSUMER?
•What are GOODS?
•What are SERVICES?
Consumer Awareness:
It is about making the consumer aware of his/her rights.
Ankit Gupta

3. The Act enshrines all the consumer(s) rights
which are internationally accepted.
The Act was introduced to
give the rules and regulations
regarding consumer welfare
the form of a law.
Ankit Gupta

4. Right to Safety
Right to Information
Right to Choose
Right to be Heard
Right to Seek Redressal
Right to Consumer Education
Ankit Gupta

5. The Consumer Protection Act 1986 is a social welfare legislation
The main object of the legislature in the enactment of this act is:
 To provide for the better protection of the interests of the
consumer
 To make provisions for establishment of consumer councils
and other authorities for settlement of consumer disputes and
matter.
This Act of 1986, applies to all goods and services, excluding
goods for resale or for commercial purpose and services rendered
free of charge and under a contract for personal service.
Akansha Awasthi

6. Quasi judicial machinery:
Observe the principles of natural justice
Give reliefs
Impose penalties
The main object of these bodies is to provide speedy and
simple redressal to consumer disputes.
Akansha Awasthi

7. Complaint:
No stamp or court fee is needed.
A complaint can be hand written or typed.
Admitted if it is filed within two years from the date on which the
cause of action has arisen.
According to Three Tier System it is decided in which commission or
forum the hearing of case will be.
Aaruni Shukla

8. Jurisdiction under Consumer Protection Act 1986
Consumer Courts: A three-tier-system
A. National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission:
claims above Rs. 20 lakh.
B. Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission or State
Commission: Claims from Rs 5 to 20 lakh.
C. Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum or District
Forum: Claims upto Rs 5 Lakh
Aaruni Shukla

9. When can a consumer can launch a complain or What should be
the nature of complaint?
a) Any unfair trade practice adopted by the trader
b) Defective goods
c) Deficiency in service
d) Excess price charged by the trader
e) Unlawful goods sale, which is hazardous to life and safety when
used.
Abhishek Pachisia

10. Format of complaint:
Complaint are addressed to ICRPC (by post / courier) duly signed.
State date wise facts in the following format: (complaints by e-
mail not accepted)
Page one: Name, Address, Residence telephone, E-mail
address (Mandatory).
Membership fee of Rs. 300 or transaction number if paid online.
Page two: Full name, registered address of the Opposite
Parties, telephone no’s, fax number and e-mail address.
Abhishek Pachisia

11. Page three onwards: Complaint with date wise facts, refer to the
page numbers of the attached documents where ever required.
RELIEF: On the last page, mention what relief that you are
looking for against
Enclose: Only one set of Xerox copies of supporting documents.
(Which are disposed off and the documents after
discarded 6 months).
Enclose: One year membership subscription of Rs. 300 by draft in
favour of "ICRPC" payable at "Mumbai”.
Online payment: Send a request e-mail for online payment
procedure to payment@consumergrievance.com.
Abhishek Pachisia

12. Class actions
CPA Section 2 (1) (b) - filing of a complaint
by a consumer, any voluntary consumer association
Registered under companies Act 1956 or under any
other law.
In case of death of a consumer , his legal representative
may ,make a complaint.
Penalty under Section 27 CPA
A trader or the complainant fails to comply with an order made by
the relevant consumer forum is liable for punishment(s):
Imprisonment- 1 month to 3 Yrs.
Fine – Rs.2000- to Rs.10,000-
Vishal Kumar

13. What can be the nature of relief granted to a consumer?
a) Repair of defective goods.
b) Replacement of defective goods.
c) Refund of the price paid for the defective goods or service.
d) Removal of deficiency in service.
e) Refund of extra money charged.
f) Withdrawal of goods hazardous to life and safety.
g) Compensation for the loss or injury suffered by the consumer
due to negligence of the opposite party.
h) Adequate cost of filing and pursuing the complaint
o In 90 days complaint should be decided from issuing date.
o 150 days in case of sample testing.
o Time limit can be extended due to practical problems.
Vishal Kumar

14. The salient features of the Act are:
It covers all the sectors whether private, public, and cooperative
or any person.
It enshrines the rights of consumers.
The Act also takes care of establishment of Consumer Protection
Councils.
The Act envisages a three-tier quasi-judicial machinery.
Ankit Baliyan

16. Reebok dealer ordered to pay compensation
(Reebok Dealer vs Harpreet Kanwar )
July 13,2009
CHANDIGARH: Consumer Court has ordered a Reebok shoe dealer to pay
Rs 5, 000 as compensation to Harpreet Kanwar for not entertaining her
request to change her shoes, which were of smaller size even after a long wait
of eight months, she claimed.
It is notable that Harpreet, a residence of Sector 44, purchased one pair of
shoes of particular design and size UK 9 from Reebok Outlet on July 7 in 2008
but when she opened the shoe box, the pair of shoes which she had purchased
was not found therein and instead a wrong size of pair of shoes.
This girl reported this to the manager of the outlet, who asked her to visit the
outlet on July 22 to exchange it. The complainant had visited the showroom a
number of times to exchange the shoes but he failed to do the same and every
time took an excuse of non-availability of stock. Moreover, he also did not
issue any exchange slip.
Amriteshwar Pratap Singh

17. When the dealer delayed the matter for about eight months, the complainant filed
a complaint against him in Consumer Court on March 6 this year. This is admitted
by the dealer that the complainant had visited his premises three to four times but
she could not be given the exact pair due to the unavailability of the stock.
However, she was also requested to get back the money of Rs 1,797, the price of the
shoe pair, which she refused flatly.
It is also claimed that the complainant had purchased the shoes for her morning
walks and physical exercise to keep her physically fit but due to the careless delay
of the showroom manager, she could not do so as a result her weight increased
and her health deteriorated, which caused her great mentally and physically
harassment.
After hearing the both sides of the argument, the Consumer Court directed the
trader to refund the amount of Rs1,794, the price of the shoes and also pay to the
complainant a sum of Rs5,000 as compensation within 30 days of receipt of a copy
of the order, failing which the entire amount will carry interest at the rate of 12 per
cent per annum since the date of filing of the case. The dealer would also be liable
to pay the litigation cost of Rs 1,100.
Amriteshwar Pratap Singh

18. School gets rap for retaining fee
TNN, Nov 29, 2010, 12.50am IST
CHANDIGARH: Terming the act of KBDAV School, Sector
7, Chandigarh, unjustified in retaining the total fees of a student who had decided
not to pursue his studies at the institute, UT district consumer disputes reprisal
forum directed it to refund the admission fee after deducting administrative
charges and processing charges.
The forum observed, "In our opinion, educational schools or institutions cannot
be permitted to behave like business establishments that work with a profit
motive. The respondent school is an education institution/school and cannot act
like a commercial establishment and there is no justification on the part of the
respondent in retaining the substantial fees paid by a student, who decides not to
pursue his/her studies in the said school/institution."
Complainant Ainesh Chandra, who had field an application through his father
Arun Chandra, a resident of Nayagaon, alleged that he took admission in Class VI
in the school for the session 2010-11 and deposited admission fee of Rs 15,900 on
February 17 this year.
Akash Sharama

19. He was told that classes would start on April 7. He also appeared in the test for
admission at St John’s School, Sector 26, Chandigarh, the result of which was
declared on March 25 and he was successful.
After considering his options, he decided to take admission in St John?s School
and deposited a fee of Rs 11,135. Thereafter, he surrendered the seat in the
respondent school before the start of the classes and sought a refund. He
contacted DAV a number of times and on May 12, they handed over a cheque for
Rs 3,000 against the deposit of Rs 15,900.
In their written reply, the respondent stated that the deposit of fee was towards
admission and tuition fee for three months, which was non-refundable in view of
rules mentioned on page 30 of the school diary.
Further, the rules regarding non-refund of fees and other charges were duly
displayed on the notice board, which were never challenged by the complainant.
It was pleaded by the respondent that caution money of Rs 3,000 was refunded to
the complainant after making deductions according to school rules.
Akash Sharama

20. The consumer forum stated that in its view, the respondents could deduct some
amount towards processing fee and administrative charges and the balance
amount should be refunded.
"Therefore, we are of the view that the respondent was unjustified in its act by
retaining the total fees of Rs 15,900 of the complainant. The respondents should
have, at the most, deducted a sum of Rs 1,000 only, towards processing fee and
administrative charges, which they have incurred at the time of admission of the
complainant," the forum stated.
The forum directed the respondent to refund Rs 11,900 (after deducting Rs 1,000
as service/processing/administrative charges and Rs 3000 which has already
been refunded to the complainant) along with litigation costs of Rs 5,500.
Akash Sharama

21. Group 1 (I.T.)