DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 371/2014
Master Aditya Bhardwaj,
S/o Sh. Kamal Sharma
Resident of 964, Arjun Nagar,
Kotla Mubarak Pur,
New Delhi
Through natural guardian/
Father Sh. Kamal Sharma ….Complainant
Versus
The Principal
Banyan Tree School,
Lodhi Road Complex.
New Delhi – 110003 …Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 19.09.2014 Date of Order : 05.08.2016
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Sh. S.S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
In the present complaint filed through his Father/natural guardian, the case of the complainant is that he passed his 10th class examination from OP school against Roll No. 8207872 in the Session 2012-2014; that since the Biology was not a subject in Senior Secondary Class of the OP he made a request to the OP for issuing of transfer certificate and original mark-sheet of having passed 10th class examination; that, however, the OP illegally demanded three months’ fee for issuing the transfer certificate and mark-sheet while the complainant had not taken admission in Class XI in OP school nor had studied for a single day in class XI. The OP did not do the needful despite service of legal notice. Therefore, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP, complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OP to release/issue the original T.C. and Mark-sheet of 10th Class and to release the caution money, to pay compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh for causing mental agony, pain and suffering to the complainant and to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards cost of litigation.
In the reply, OP has inter-alia pleaded that the complainant had been a student of OP school till the application of school leaving certificate was filed by him on 5.6.14 with the OP school. It is further stated as under:
“It is respectfully submitted that it is a continued process of the school that after appearing for the exams of Class X, the students are automatically promoted on the roll of class XI since no addition fee/formality is required by any of the existing students. That in case of the Complainant, being aware of the standard process, after appearing exams of Class X, he continued to attend classes of Class XI and his father also attended school open day (Parent – Teacher interaction) on 17th May, 2014. During these meetings with the school and teachers none of them ever mentioned of the stream choice of Biology until he filed the application for school leaving certificate with the Respondent school on June 05, 2014. The case of the complainant that he did not take admission in class XI is wrong and misconceived and is merely an excuse taken with a fraudulent intention to not to pay the School fees to the Respondent for the first Quarter from April 2014 to June 2014.”
It is stated that the OP is ready to give School Leaving Certificate and other relevant documents to the complainant on the payment of pending fees against him. Pleading that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act 1986, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement wherein he has not specifically denied that the application for issuing school leaving certificate was filed by him with the OP school on 5.6.2014.
Father of the complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence and he has filed the copy of the application form for school leaving certificate as Ex. CW-1/A (colly). On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Manager of the OP School has been filed in evidence. OP’s witness has filed original note-sheet of Open day sheet pertaining to Parents Teachers Meeting signed by the Father of the Complainant as Annex. A.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard arguments on behalf of the parties and have also carefully gone through the record.
It is not out of place to mention here that on 27.7.2016 the father/natural guardian of the complainant stated before the forum that the complainant has since got admission in a college and, therefore, there is no need for TC. However, according to him the OP school has not been releasing the mark-sheet and Certificate of 10th Class. On the other hand, it is stated on behalf of the OP that the complainant has to deposit fee for 3 months from April 2014 to June 2014 and only thereafter the said documents shall be released.
The complainant has not marked exhibit numbers on the documents. However, we mark copy of the application for transfer certificate and caution money dated 5.6.2014 as Mark A for the purposes of identification. The same has been signed by the brother of the complainant on his behalf. It means that the application for issuing transfer certificate was not filed by the complainant with the OP school before 5.6.2014. Annex. A is the original note-sheet of the Open Day Sheet pertaining to Parents Teachers Meeting signed by the father of the complainant. The complainant has not denied the signatures of his father on the said note-sheet. Therefore, we have no reason to disbelieve the authenticity of document at Annex. A which proves that the father of the complainant had attended the said meeting held on 17.5.2014. It is not in dispute that the new session starts from the month of April. The complainant ought to have moved an application for issuing the transfer certificate immediately after 31.3.2014. His plea that he wanted to take Biology which was not a subject being taught in OP school and, hence, he moved this application for issuing transfer certificate is beyond our comprehension. Being a student of the OP school he must be presumed to have knowledge that Biology was not being taught as a subject in OP school after 2011. Therefore, the complainant should be presumed to have studied in the OP school for 3 months i.e. from April 2014 to June 2014 though he might or might not have attended the classes.
In such a case, the OP school was also not justified in adopting adamant attitude and ought to have considered the request of the complainant for issuing transfer certificate to him after waiving fees of 3 months but, however, at the same time the complainant was also not justified in adopting a more rigid and adamant attitude while in not paying the fees for the 3 months. Anyhow, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that while retaining his certificates unless the payment of fees for 3 months was made by the complainant, the OP committed any deficiency in services.
In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
However, the complainant shall be at liberty to deposit the fees for 3 months and in that case the OP shall return the original certificates to him.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 05.08.2016
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 371/14
05.08.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
