DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.74/03.06.2008 Decided on : 16.12.2008 Navjot Kaur minor aged about 7 years D/o Sh.Kulwant Singh through her natural guardian mother Harpreet Kaur w/o Sh.Kulwant Singh S/o Sh.Lal Singh resident of village Alike, Tehsil Sardulgarh, District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.Akkal Academy, Ratia Road, Village Kauri Wara, Tehsil Sardulgarh, District Mansa through its Principal. 2.Mrs.Sudarpan, Principal, Ratia Road, Village Kauri Wara, Tehsil Sardulgarh, District Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.Ranjit Singh, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.M.S.Sandhu, Advocate counsel for the Opposite Parties. Before: Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- This complaint has been filed by Navjot Kaur minor D/o Sh.Kulwant Singh through her mother and natural guardian Smt.Harpreet Kaur , under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act'), on the allegations that, she was the student of U.K.G. class during the academic year 2007-08, in Akkal Academy , run by the opposite parties, after depositing her fees, and other charges. The minor complainant took final examination, of U.K.G. Class, as such, she is the consumer, under the opposite parties, as per the provisions of the Act. The Contd........2 : 2 : result of the minor complainant was declared on 15.3.2008 at about 1 P.M. On the even date, minor complainant, along with her mother, appeared in the premises, of the Akal Academy, and asked for the result card, on the result counter, but her mother was informed, by the Teacher Incharge, that the result of the minor complainant had been with held, by OP No.2. On being approached, by the mother of the minor complainant in her office, OP No.2 replied that dues for the previous class of the minor complainant have not cleared by her parents, although, not even a single penny was outstanding towards her. Thus the opposite parties have withheld the result of the minor complainant, with malafide intention. The mother of the minor complainant, served notice, dated 24.3.2008, upon the opposite parties, for their refusal, to declare her result and to deliver the result card but despite receipt of notice, opposite parties, did not declare the result, and two days before filing of the instant complaint, they refused, to declare the result, as such, there is deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties. The Minor complainant and her mother, had felt discouraged, humiliated, harassed and defamed, in the presence, of several people, who had gathered, at the time of their visit, in the premises of the Academy, and could not get admission, in time in next class, in any other school. The minor also suffered mental and physical torture and her precious time was wasted, due to the illegal act of the opposite parties, as such, she and her mother are entitled, to the payment of compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, for their humiliation and harassment, and a sum of Rs.35,000/-, on account of mental and physical torture and wastage of their precious time and another sum of Rs.10,000/-, on account of litigation expenses. Hence this complaint. 2. On being put to notice, the opposite parties filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that no cause of action has accrued to the minor complainant, to file the instant complaint, as her result was declared, on stipulated date, i.e. 15.3.2008; Contd........3 : 3 : that the complainant is not the consumer, under the opposite parties, as such, complaint is not maintainable, and that she has concealed the material facts, from the knowledge of this Forum, and has filed the complaint, which is false and frivolous, to her knowledge, and that the complaint is filed, with ulterior motive for causing harassment, humiliation, physical torture and economic loss, to the opposite parties, as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, it is admitted that minor complainant was a student of the opposite parties in U.K.G. Class at Akal Academy for the period 2007-08. It is also admitted that result of U.K.G. Class, for the said period, was declared on 15.3.2008, but denied that minor complainant or her mother visited on the stipulated date and sought result card. It is submitted that in fact an amount of Rs.7190/- was outstanding on behalf of the minor complainant, on account of purchase of books, stationery and tuition fee of the L.K.G. Class and a criminal case, bearing FIR No.81 dated 12.6.2008, has been registered by the opposite parties, under Section 380/409/420 IPC in Police Station, Sardulgarh against Amrit Singh, paternal uncle of the complainant and bail to him has been declined by the Learned Sessions Judge, Mansa and present complaint has been filed as counter blast to pressurise the opposite parties. It is denied that minor complainant has suffered any loss, on account of late declaration of the result. It is further submitted, that minor complainant has got admission in Meera Public School, Sardulewala, even before the filing of the instant complaint. It is also submitted that notice served by the complainant upon the opposite parties was replied, vide letter dated 28.3.2008, through registered post, as such, there is no question of withholding of her result, on account of which, the minor complainant, or her mother, has suffered mental or physical harassment, or even discouraged or defamed in the presence of other people. Rest of the averments made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the complaint, with costs. Contd........4 : 4 : 3. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the complainant, tendered in evidence, copies of affidavit of Harpreet Kaur, mother and next friend of the minor complainant and copy of notice dated 24.3.2008 served upon the opposite parties, Ext. C-1 and C-2 respectively. On the other hand, the opposite parties, have tendered affidavit of OP No.2, Mrs.Sudarpan, Principal of Akal Academy, Ext. OP-1, and documents Ext.OP-2 to OP-8, including copy of FIR registered against paternal uncle, on account of misappropriation of funds of Akal Academy, affidavit of Class Incharge, reply of notice, admission card and postal receipts. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through, the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by the parties, carefully, with their kind assistance. 5. At the out set, the learned counsel, for the complainant Sh.Ranjit Singh, Advocate, has submitted that, conduct of the opposite parties of withholding the result of the minor complainant on the ground of non-payment of dues for lower classes, was arbitrary and not justified, as they were not expected ,to admit her, in next class, until dues had been cleared, by her parents. Learned counsel has further submitted that, minor complainant had been admitted, in next class ,in another school, on the basis of entrance test, but she, along with her mother, had faced humiliation and harassment, because of non declaration of result and had to incur extra expenditure, because of the non delivery of the result card, by the opposite parties, who were biased, against the minor because of registration of criminal case against her paternal uncle, who had been serving in the academy of the opposite parties and is facing trial on the basis of concocted facts. Learned counsel argued that opposite parties are liable to compensate, the minor complainant, for inconvenience caused, and extra expenditure incurred by her parents, and humiliation and harassment suffered by her and her mother at their hands. Learned counsel Contd........5 : 5 : has also urged that the minor complainant, is also liable, to be compensated in terms of costs incurred on filing of the instant complaint by her. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties Sh.Major Singh Sandhu, Advocate, has submitted that parents of the minor complainant, had not paid the dues outstanding towards her, for lower classes, before she was promoted to U.K.G. Class. Learned counsel has further argued that minor complainant was got admitted in the nursery class, by her paternal uncle Amrit Singh, against whom a criminal case has been registered, on account of misappropriation of the funds, of the Akal Academy run by the opposite parties, and he is detained in the jail is facing trial, as such, the instant complaint is nothing, but counter blast, which has been filed with malafide intention, to pressurise the opposite parties. Learned counsel has submitted, that, although the opposite parties could withheld the result of the minor complainant, for non payment of the dues of the lower classes, yet result was declared, on stipulated date, along with other class mates, but her mother has concocted false version in connivance with the paternal uncle, detained in jail with ulterior motive, as such, complaint is liable to be dismissed, with costs ,because goodwill of the academy run by the opposite parties, has been adversely effected, due to filing of the present complaint, and they have faced harassment and had to incur expenditure, for defending the complaint. 7. Admittedly, the minor complainant had been a student of U.K.G. Class, in Akal Academy run, by the opposite parties, in academic year 2007-08. There is no dispute, that no amount was due against the minor complainant, on any account, whatsoever, for the present class. The plea of the opposite parties, is that parents of the minor complainant, had not paid the amount outstanding in the sum of Rs.7190/- due, on account of, supply of books, stationery and tuition fee, which was liable to be paid in Nursery and L.K.G. Classes. The opposite parties have produced on record, admission form, Ext.OP-2, of the minor complainant, showing that Contd........6 : 6 : she was admitted, in Nursery Class on 17.2.2005, by her paternal uncle, Amrit Singh. They have also produced, on record reply, Ext.OP-3, acknowledging the receipt of notice, served by the mother of the complainant, Ext.C-2, before filing of the present complaint. They have further produced, postal receipts, Ext. OP-4, showing that registered letter containing the reply, was delivered, in the post office. In the reply, Ext.OP-3, the details of the amount due, have been mentioned, by the opposite parties, but it has been stated, that result of the complainant was declared on the stipulated date i.e. on 15.3.2008, but neither she, nor her parents turned up, to receive the result card. It is also mentioned therein that some stranger had approached the teacher Incharge, for collection of result card, on behalf of the parents, of the minor complainant, but the same could not be delivered to him, as per the rules and regulations, of the Academy, run by the opposite parties. They have also tendered, affidavit Ext.OP-6, of Smt.Gurvinder Kaur, Teacher Incharge, of U.K.G. Class, wherein, she has solemnly affirmed, that the result of the minor complainant, was declared on 15.3.2008, and result cards were distributed by her to the parents of the students, but none turned up on behalf of the parents of the minor complainant, but a person claiming himself, to be Gurjit Singh, appeared on their behalf, to whom the result card could not be delivered, as per the rules and regulations of the Academy run by the opposite parties. The name of Gurjit Singh has not found mentioned in the reply to notice dated 28.3.2008. As such, much confidence cannot be reposed, on the affidavit of Gurvinder Kaur , Teacher Incharge of U.K.G. Class of the minor complainant. The opposite parties have also tendered in evidence copy of FIR No.81, Ext.OP-8, registered on 12.6.2008, at Police Station, Sardulgarh, against Amrit Singh, paternal uncle of the minor complainant, under Section 380/409/420 IPC, for misappropriation of funds of their academy, in course of his employment. They have also produced copy of the order dated 18.7.2008, Exhibit OP-7, passed by Contd........7 : 7 : Sh.Bhupinder Singh, Learned Sessions Judge, Mansa, dismissing the bail application, filed by, paternal uncle of the minor complainant, for grant of anticipatory bail. However, the opposite parties have not produced any documentary evidence showing that some amount was outstanding towards the minor complainant on account of supply of books and stationery and tuition fee . Since the documents are supposed to be in possession of the opposite parties, therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn against them for withholding the same. The opposite parties were not expected to admit the minor complainant in U.Kg. Class, in case dues, for the lower class, have not been cleared by her parents. There is nothing on record that opposite parties, had served notice upon, the parents of the minor complainant for deposit of the dues of the lower classes. In case dues have not been deposited, or the said fact had come, to the notice of the authorities of the academy run by the opposite parties, then they were expected, to take recourse of the such action, or to initiate some action for recovery against the parents, of the minor complainant. 8. The opposite parties have produced on record copy of letter dated 17.7.2008, Ext.OP-5, issued by Meera Public School, Sardulewala, District Mans a, to the effect that minor complainant Navjot Kaur and her brother Kaimandeep Singh, had been admitted, to next class in their institution, in the academic year 2008-09, after they cleared the entrance test and submitted the requisite documents. This fact substantiates the plea of the minor complainant that she has taken admission in the above said institution, in the next class, after clearance of entrance test. It is not the case of the opposite parties, that they have delivered the result card to the minor complainant, as such, mere mentioning of factum of deposit of other documents by the parents of the minor complainant in the present educational institute, does not mean, that result card of the lower class had also been submitted by them at the time of her admission in next class. 9. It is admitted fact that Amrit Singh, paternal uncle of the Contd........8 : 8 : complainant, who got admitted, the minor complainant, in the academy run by the opposite parties, is facing trial and detained in jail and FIR has been registered against him, on 12.6.2008, The parents of minor need not enter into unnecessary litigation with opposite parties without any reason or rhyme. As such, we express our inability, to agree with the plea of the opposite parties that the instant complaint, is a counter blast, to the registration of a FIR against the uncle of the minor complainant, who got her admitted in nursery class. There was no reason, for the mother of the complainant, to indulge in unnecessary litigation with the opposite parties, if they had not withheld the result of her minor daughter. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we have come, to the irresistible conclusion, that there is deficiency, in service on the part of the opposite parties, for which they are liable, to compensate the minor complainant. However, so far as, claim of costs and compensation, by the mother of the minor complainant, is concerned, we are not inclined, to award any amount for humiliation and harassment suffered by her, because, she is not a party to the complaint in personal capacity. 11. Resultantly, we accept the complaint and direct the opposite parties, to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the minor complainant, on account of humiliation and harassment suffered and expenses incurred by her due to their conduct, within a period of one month, failing which the opposite parties, shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum to the minor complainant. We further direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the minor complainant on account of costs of litigation, to which she had been dragged due to withholding of her result by them. 12. The copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges under the rules and file be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 16.12.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
