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 !!!

Popularity: 4% [?]

The recent decision of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to slap a R630-crore fine on realty major DLF for abusing its dominant position is only a tip of the iceberg. If the records of the Delhi consumer court are taken into account, the maximum number of cases registered are against real estate companies.
Out of every 10 complaints which get registered at the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (consumer court) in Delhi, eight are against real estate players.

Currently, there are around 400 complaints pending before the consumer court with claims amounting to upward of R20 lakh. An official of the consumer court said: “Roughly, more than 60% of the complaints received by the court are against real estate players and the number is rising with each passing day. Till date from January 2011 we have received almost 120 complaints.”

The nature of complaints ranges from unlimited delays in granting possession of houses to charging more than the price quoted at the time of the deal to increasing the number of floors.

According to the official, ever since CCI-DLF case hit headlines, the court has witnessed an increase in the inquiries regarding the procedure to file complaints, the success ratio, and the time taken in settling the cases.

Supreme Court lawyer ML Lahoty, who was the lawyer for the residents’ associations in the case against DLF, said, “Consumers not just from Delhi but from Hyderabad, Kolkata, Mumbai, Pune and many other places have come to me seeking advise against the developers.”

Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s former president Justice J D Kapoor, however, maintained that the Consumer Act, under which consumer courts function, lacks teeth. “The Act says that the consumer should get redressal within 90 days, but this is seldom the reality,” he said.

According to Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Associations of India (Credai) president Lalit Kumar Jain, transparency is a big issue with the developers. “Most of the developers do not clarify the actual carpet area in their advertisements. Also, there are so many charges that they never mention (these) in their advertisements or their brochures. At the end of the day consumers feel cheated,” said Jain.

source: http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Complaints-against-realtors-rising/849327/

Popularity: 28% [?]

The District Consumer Forum on Tuesday directed a private school to pay Rs. 2 lakh as penalty for issuing the transfer and conduct certificate (TC) to a student in a way that will adversely affect his higher education prospects. As per the directive, the school authorities should pay the amount within a month, failing which they should remit an amount at 10 per cent interest of the penalty during the period of delay.

The judgment came as Mohammed Ismayil, son of Pallikkunnu Hamsa, hailing from Edakkara, filed a complaint against Good Shepherd Modern English Medium School at Palunda near Chunkathara where he had completed his
secondary school education.
The complaint said that the school authorities demanded Rs. 39,000 as fees when his father approached them for his TC to join another school for higher secondary education. It also said that they turned a deaf ear to his parent’s plea to correct the wrongly entered date of birth in the mark list.

Delivering the verdict, the consumer forum discarded the argument of the school management that the institution’s prospectus had clearly instructed the students to pay the complete fees up to Standard XII, even if they leave the school after X.

In an interim order, the Forum had directed the school to issue a TC to Mohammed Ismayil.

However, the school authorities issued it with the conduct of the student being marked ‘bad’. It was also mentioned in the certificate that the student had a liability of Rs. 27,000 to the school.

Making a strong comment against the move, the Forum directed the school authorities to issue a new TC marking the conduct of the student as good, along with the penalty.

source: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/consumer-forum-slaps-rs-2-lakh-fine-on-school/186222-60-116.html

Popularity: 33% [?]

International banking major Citi Bank has been imposed a fine of Rs 30,000 by the country’s apex consumer forum for filing “meritless” petitions against lower consumer fora order asking it to pay Rs 1.80 lakh to one of its car loan customers.

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission dismissed City Bank’s plea challenging Orissa State Consumer Commission order, saying it has come before the NCDRC “to cover up” its own “faults and negligent acts” in belatedly challenging the district consumer forum order, which had directed the bank to pay Rs 1.80 lakh to its car loan customer.

While imposing penalty on the bank, Justice V B Gupta said the state consumer commission had rightly dismissed its appeal against the district consumer forum as it had filed it after a delay of more than 3 years.

“It is well settled that no leniency should be shown to such litigants, who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence goes on filing meritless petitions in different fora,” the NCDRC said.

“As the two fora below have given detailed and reasoned orders which do not call for any interference nor they suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, the present petition is dismissed with punitive costs of Rs 30,000,” it said.

Citi Bank had approached the apex consumer forum against the order of Orissa consumer forum which had decided not to hear its plea after a district consumer forum directed the bank to pay Rs 1.8 lakh to Orissa businessman Pradeep Kumar Patri.

Patri had purchased a car on a loan from the Citi Bank in 2006 and was to pay 60 EMIs via post-dated cheques. He had moved the district forum alleging that the bank did not furnish accounts details to him as to whether there is any outstanding dues and the vehicle was “un-unauthorisedly repossessed” in October 10, 2006.

The bank in its reply said some post-dated cheques issued by the customer had bounced due to which installments were not realised. The bank had re-sold the vehicle to another person in Chhattisgarh a month later.

The district forum in January 2008 ordered Citi Bank to refund Rs 1.74 lakh to the complainant and also pay Rs 5,000 as “compensation for mental agony” and Rs 1,000 as litigation cost.

After the state consumer commission dismissed the bank’s appeal against the district forum order on the grounds of delay, it moved NCDRC claiming it had been following the case in the district forum but its lawyer did not inform it as to when it gave the order.

The NCDRC, however, rejected its plea saying Citi Bank is a multi-national bank having large number of employees in its legal department and it did not file the appeal in time only due to “negligence”.(PTI)

source: http://www.rtitoday.com/detailarticle.php?articleid=1527

Popularity: 30% [?]