Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/136

Sukhdeep Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Baba Farid Public School - Opp.Party(s)

Gurpreet Singh Chauhan

17 Feb 2020

ORDER

    DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :          136 of 2019

Date of Institution :      23.05.2019

Date of Decision :        17.02.2020

Sukhdeep Kaur aged about 30 years, d/o Gurbalwinder Singh son of Raghubir Singh r/o  Village Manawan Tehsil Zira, District Moga, now, wife of Dalveer Singh Sekhon son of Jagroop Singh r/o Village Machaki Kalan, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                    .....Complainant

Versus

1. Baba Farid Public School, Faridkot through its Principal,
2. Dr. S K Memorial Public School, FCI Road, Moga through its Principal.
3. Central Board of Secondary Education, Sector 5, Panchkula-134152 through its Head of Department/ Chairman.
4. Central Board of Secondary Education, “Shiksha Kendra’, 2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi, 110092 through its  Chairman.
5. Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana through its Principal/Director.
6. State Institute of Nursing and Paramedical Sciences Badal, District Shri Muktsar Sahib through its Principal.
7. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Sadiq Road, Faridkot District Faridkot through its Vice Chancellor.

cc no. 136 of 2019

8. Punjab Nurses Registration Council, Medical Sikhya Bhawan, 3^rd Floor, Sector 69, Near Maya Hospital, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Registrar.
9. Passport Office, Ranjit Avenue, Shri Amritsar Sahib through its Passport Officer.                                                                          

.........OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Ms. Parampal Kaur, Member,

Present:       Sh Gurpreet Singh Chauhan, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 Sh Navjot Singh Wahniwal, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

 Sh Manmohan Singh, Ld Counsel for OP-5,

Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OP-6 and 7,

Sh Harjit Singh Kalsi, Ld Counsel for OP-8,

OP-2 to OP-4 and OP-9 Exparte.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

 

                                            Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs for deficiency in service and for seeking directions to OPs to correct the name of mother and father of complainant on the certificates of school, college, University as well as on registration certificates and for further directing

cc no. 136 of 2019

 

OPs to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for inconvenience, harassment and mental agony suffered by complainants besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2                                         Briefly stated, case of the complainant is that on 28.02.1996, she was adopted by her close relative Lakhvir Singh son of Prithi Singh and Shaminder Kaur wife of Lakhvir Singh vide Adoption Deed No.900 dated 28.02.1996, but on 19.09.2012 complainant filed Civil Suit at Moga for setting aside the adoption deed on the ground of mere paper transactions and claimed that she is not the adopted daughter of said Lakhvir Singh and Shaminder Kaur. Vide order dated 26.02.2015 Ld Civil Court, Moga decreed the suit in her favour and set aside the adoption deed by declaring the same ineffective against the rights of complainants. It is submitted that at the time of execution of above said adoption, names of parents who adopted the complainant was given in school record instead of her biological parents and accordingly, she was issued certificates for matriculation, college and university degrees and registration certificate of nursing with name of Lakhvir Singh as father and Shaminder Kaur as mother of complainant. It is further submitted that on 18.11.2017, complainant requested OP-9 to issue her passport with the names of her biological parents. The name of her biological father is Gurbalwinder Singh and mother’s name is Gurmeet Kaur, but OP-9 refused to do so and directed her to get

cc no. 136 of 2019

corrected the name of her parents on school certificate. She approached OP-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, but all refused to pay any heed to her genuine request and directed her to get order of court. Complainant made several requests to OPs to correct the name of her parents in certificates issued by school, college and university, but all in vain. All this act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Complainant has prayed for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation for inconvenience, harassment, mental agony besides cost of litigation. Hence, the complaint.

3                                        The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 28.05.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                        On receipt of the notice, OP-1 filed written reply wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that whatever name of complainant or her parents were mentioned in the admission forms, same were taken for preparing the school record and moreover, answering OP has no objection if names are changed by the CBSE. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and it is submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 

cc no. 136 of 2019

5                                         OP-5 filed written statement wherein took preliminary objections that complainant does not come under the definition of consumer and complicated questions of law and facts requiring heavy evidence are involved in present case, which are not permissible in summary proceedings of this Forum and can be decided only by Civil Court. Moreover, Consumer Forum, Faridkot has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present matter as directions sought to be issued by complainant regarding change of name of parents can be issued only by Civil Court. It is further averred that complainant passed out her 10+2 from the school of OP-2 which is affiliated with CBSE/OP-3 and 4, who have their own rules and regulations regarding change of name of any student. Similarly, she did her B.Sc. Nursing from OP-7/ Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot and got registered her name as staff nurse. BFUHS has also their own rules and regulations for change of name. Complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum, she has projected a false story and has not come to the Forum with clean hands. Complainant appeared in Punjab Para Medical Entrance Test held by OP-7 in 2008 under the name Sukhdeep Kaur daughter of Lakhvir Singh and Shaminder Kaur, on the basis of which she was given admission in B.Sc. Nursing with them and after successful completion of B.Sc. Nursing, degree was issued to complainant by OP-7 and answering OP-5 has no role to play in changing the name of parents of complainant in degree or certificates as all certificates and degrees are issued by OP-7.

cc no. 136 of 2019

Complainant has falsely dragged answering OP-5 in present litigation. It is further averred that complainant never approached them for amendment in name of her parents. On merits, OP-5 has reiterated the same pleadings taken by them as in preliminary objections and has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and further averred that there is no deficiency in service on their part. Prayer for dismissal of complaint alongwith costs is made.

6                                          Ld Counsel for OP-6 and OP-7 filed written statement wherein asserted that as per their record, name of father and mother is written as Lakhvir Singh and Shaminder Kaur and these names are written as per record submitted by complainant and on the basis of matriculate certificate. Degree is issued to complainant as per name mentioned on matriculate certificate and information furnished by her and there is no fault on the part of answering OPs. Moreover, change in the name of parents of complainant can be made only after getting done the necessary correction in matriculate certificate from concerned Board or institution. Complainant is required to get corrected the name of her parents in matriculation certificate and only then, name of her parents can be corrected in the degree certificate to be issued by answering OPs. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

 

 

cc no. 136 of 2019

7                                         In written statement, OP-7 asserted that allegations levelled by complainant are wrong and incorrect and no cause of action arises against them and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

8                                       In reply, OP-8 has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and averred that there is no fault on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

9                                      OP-9 appeared in the Forum through representative Sh Joginder Singh and filed reply wherein asserted that complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. It is further averred that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and it is not maintainable under the provisions f the Consumer Protection Act and is liable to be dismissed. But after filing reply, OP-9 did not appear in the Forum either in person or through counsel on any hearing. Therefore, vide order dated 15.10.2019, OP-9 was proceeded against exparte.

10                                             Notice issued to OP-2 to OP-4 through registered cover did not receive back undelivered.  Acknowledgment might have been mislaid in transit. It was presumed to be served. Despite expiry of statutory period, no body appeared in the Forum on behalf of OP-2 to OP-4 on date fixed either in person or through counsel, therefore,

 

cc no. 136 of 2019

vide order dated 14.08.2019, OP-2 to OP-4 were proceeded against exparte. 

11                                                      Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant  Ex.C-A/1 and documents Ex C-1 to C-9 and then, closed the evidence.

12                                             Ld Counsel for OP-5 tendered in evidence affidavit of Dr Triza Jiwan as Ex OP-5/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP-5. Ld Counsel for OP-6 and 7 tendered in evidence affidavit of G C Ahir as Ex OP-6, 7/1 and document Ex OP-6,7/2 and then, closed the same on behalf of OP-6 and 7. Despite availing sufficient opportunities, OP-1 and 8 did not conclude their evidence, therefore, vide order dated 29.01.2020, evidence of OP-1 and OP-8 was closed by order of this Forum.

13                                        Ld Counsel for complainant argued that on 28.02.1996, complainant was adopted by her relative Lakhvir Singh and Shaminder Kaur vide proper Adoption Deed but on 19.09.2012 she filed Civil Suit at Moga for setting aside the adoption deed which was in her favour on 26.02.2015 and said deed became ineffective. Due to said execution, instead of names of her biological parents, the names of parents who adopted the complainant was given in school record and accordingly, she was issued certificates for matriculation, college and

cc no. 136 of 2019

university degrees and registration certificate of nursing with name of parents who adopted her. On 18.11.2017, complainant requested OP-9 to issue her passport with the names of her biological parents, but OP-9 refused to do so and directed her to get corrected the name of her parents on school certificate. She approached OP-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, but all refused to pay any heed to her genuine request and directed her to get order of court. Complainant made several requests to OPs to incorporate the names of her biological parents in certificates issued by school, college and university, but all in vain, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and it has caused her huge harassment and mental agony. Prayer for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses is made.

14                                       To controvert the allegations of complainants, ld counsel for OP-1 argued that there is no deficiency in service on their part as certificate in question is not issued by them and moreover, requisite correction cannot be done by them. it is further argued that the particulars given by complainant in admission forms were taken for preparing the school record and moreover, they have no objection if names of her parents are changed by the CBSE.

15                               Ld Counsel for OP-5 argued that complainant passed out her 10+2 from the school of OP-2 affiliated with CBSE/OP-3 and 4, who have their own rules and regulations regarding change of name of any student. Similarly, she did her B.Sc. Nursing from OP-7/

cc no. 136 of 2019

Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot and got registered her name as staff nurse. BFUHS has also its own rules and regulations for change of name. She cleared PPMET got conducted by OP-7 in 2008 under the name Sukhdeep Kaur daughter of Lakhvir Singh and Shaminder Kaur, on the basis of which she was given admission in B.Sc. Nursing with them and after successful completion of B.Sc. Nursing, degree was issued by OP-7 and in all this OP-5 has no role to play in changing the name of parents of complainant in degree or certificates as all certificates and degrees are issued by OP-7. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

16                                          Ld Counsel for OP-6 and OP-7 argued that  name of father and mother of complainant is written as Lakhvir Singh and Shaminder Kaur and these names are written as per record submitted by complainant and on the basis of matriculate certificate. Degree is issued to her as per names of parents mentioned on matriculate certificate and information furnished by her and there is no fault on the part of OP-6 and OP-7 and names can be changed only after necessary correction in matriculate certificate from concerned Board or institution. Complainant should get correct the names of her parents in matriculation certificate and only then, name of her parents can be corrected in the degree certificates. All the other allegations are denied being incorrect and prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

 

cc no. 136 of 2019

17                                     Ld Counsel for OP-7 argued that allegations levelled by complainant are wrong and incorrect and no cause of action arises against them and also prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. OP-8 also argued that there is no deficiency in service on their part and denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect.

18                                            Plea taken by OP-9 is that complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and is liable to be dismissed.

19                                            We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as opposite parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents placed on the record by respective parties.

20                                         Careful perusal of the case file shows that it is the admitted case of parties that complainant passed out her 10^th, 12^th, Graduation Degree in Nursing from their respective institutions and in all certificates and degrees names of her parents is mentioned as Lakhvir Singh and Shaminder Kaur the persons who adopted the complainant against proper adoption deed. Complainant got cancelled the said adoption deed through the order dated 28.02.2015 passed by Ld Civil Court, Moga and thereafter, she approached OP-9 Passport Authority for

cc no. 136 of 2019

issuance of passport with name of her biological parents instead of those, who adopted her, but OP-9 refused to do so and directed her to get corrected her all certificates with the name of her biological parents. Thereafter, complainant approached all OPs and requested them to correct her certificates by deleting the name of parents who adopted her and by incorporating the name of her biological parents, but all OPs did not pay any heed to her genuine requests and refused to help her. Now, grievance of complainant is that OPs are not rectifying her certificates and degrees by incorporating the name of her biological parents. She has prayed for justice.

21                                  There is no doubt to the pleadings of complainant in the light of documents produced by her on record. There is no denial by any OP for adoption deed. It is also proved that document Ex C-1 copy of judgment order dated 26.02.2015 given by Ld Civil Judge ( Jr. Division) is fully authentic and self explanatory which itself speaks that adoption deed has become ineffective and it set aside. Birth Certificate of complainant Ex C-2 further throws light on the fact that real and biological mother and father of complainant are Gurmeet Kaur and Gurbalwinder Singh. Certificates and degrees from Ex C-5 to Ex C-9 issued by various schools and University also prove that names of those parents is mentioned in record, who adopted the complainant. OP-2 to OP-4 who issued certificate for 10+2 and CBSE are exparte in present case. There is no doubt that complainant made several requests to OPs to

cc no. 136 of 2019

correct names of her parents in certificates of 10^th, 12the and degree certificates by deleting the names of parents who adopted the complainant and to insert the name of her biological parents in her certificates. Moreover, when complainant approached OPs with request to correct the particulars in respect of names of her parents in their record, OPs should have made correction keeping in view the order dt 26.02.2015 passed by the ld court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moga submitted by complainant containing correct names of her parents as Gurbalwinder Singh and Gurmeet Kaur. Hence, in these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that act of OPs in not rectifying their own record is inappropriate and it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

22                                            In the light of above discussion, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OP-3 and OP-4 are ordered to rectify their record by incorporating the name of Gurbalwinder Singh as father and Gurmeet Kaur as mother of complainant and delete the names of Lakhvir Singh and Shaminder Kaur as parents of complainant and issue fresh certificates with correct names of her biological parents in certificates of 10^th and 12^th and thereafter, all the other parties are directed to correct the degree certificates on submission of fresh certificates of 10^th and 12^th  after correction. Compliance of this order be made jointly and severally by all opposite parties within one month of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainants shall be entitled to

cc no. 136 of 2019

proceed under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be issued to parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 17.02.2020

 

                                         (Param Pal Kaur)                   (Ajit Aggarwal)

Member                                      President