A consumer disputes redressal commission in Hyderabad has ordered a school chairman to pay Rs 2.22 lakh to a parent after the institution declined to return an advance admission fee paid ahead of the academic term.
The ruling requires the school management to refund the initial admission deposit of Rs 1.92 lakh, along with Rs 25,000 in compensation for inconvenience and Rs 5,000 toward litigation expenses. The commission mandated that the entire amount be disbursed to the complainant within 45 days.
The bench—comprising Commission President Vakkanti Narasimha Rao alongside members P V T R Jawahar Babu and Suma Vala—issued the decision on a complaint filed on September 29 by a 54-year-old father. In the proceedings, advocate K Muralidhar Reddy Katram represented the complainant, while counsel S Madhusudhan Reddy appeared for the educational institution.
Advance Payment And Change Of School
The dispute stems from April 4, 2018, when the father paid an initial instalment of Rs 1.92 lakh to secure admission for his son into Class 5 for the 2018-19 academic session. Following the payment, the parent opted to transfer the child to an alternative school situated closer to the cricket academy where the boy received coaching outside school hours.
Before the academic session got underway, the father approached the school administration, explained his rationale, and requested a reimbursement of the deposit. The school turned down the request, maintaining that institution regulations strictly prohibit fee refunds once payment has been received. The parent subsequently took the matter to the consumer forum.
Rejection Of Non-Refundable Policy
In its defense before the commission, the school denied allegations of deficiency in service or unfair trade practices and called for the complaint to be dismissed. The management asserted that the parent had formally accepted the school’s regulations and signed an undertaking acknowledging that fees would not be returned under any circumstances.
The commission dismissed the school’s argument, observing that the institution itself acknowledged receiving the first instalment in April 2018, well before the school year commenced. The bench concluded that because the father had requested the return of the funds significantly ahead of the academic calendar, the institution could not cite internal rules to avoid repaying the amount.
