BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.337/2017.
Date of instt.:12.12.2017.
Date of Decision:25.05.2018.
Harsh (minor) s/o Shri Daya Singh s/o Shri Sadhu through his father Daya Singh as natural guardian and next friend r/o village Dherdu, Tehsil Dhand, Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- BPR Sr. Sec. Public School, Fatehpur Pundri through its Principal.
- BPR Sr. Sec. Public School, Fatehpur Pundri through its Managing Director.
- The Regional Officer, Central Board of Secondary Examination, Sector-5, Panchkula.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Shri Jagmal Singh, President.
Shri Parmod Kumar, Member.
Present: Shri Hem Raj Wadhwa, Advocate for the complainant.
OPs ex parte.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant is minor and took admission in OPs No.1 and 2 school under OP No.3 on 8.4.2017. It is further alleged that on demand of Rs.9120/- by of OPs No.1 and 2, the father of complainant paid Rs.5000/-. It is further alleged that without getting prior approval of OP No.3, the OPs No.1 and 2 has got admission of complainant and taken handsome amount by way of tuition fees and admission charges. It is further alleged that OP No.3 through Section Officer has sent letter to OPs No.1 and 2 with the direction and decision that his admission alongwith Vijay Kumar, Abhishek and Vishal Sharma has not been considered and alleged that on scrutiny of documents submitted, it was found that the candidate was local transfer from vicinity is in violation of Rule 7.3 of Examination Bye Laws. It is further alleged that OPs No.1 and 2 cheated him by extorting huge amount. It is further alleged that father of complainant moved an application to the office of Ld. CJM cum Secretary DLSA, Kaithal who directed the Distt. Education Officer, Kaithal to take necessary action and also directed the BEO Pundri to sent the report within a week positively but OPs No.1 and 2 have not taken any action till now. This way, the OPs are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties did not appear and proceeded against ex parte vide order dt. 25.1.2018.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 27.4.2018.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the complainant.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant is minor and took admission in OPs No.1 and 2 school under OP No.3 on 8.4.2017 and paid Rs.5000/-. He further argued that without getting prior approval of OP No.3, the OPs No.1 and 2 has got his admission. He further argued that OP No.3 through Section Officer has sent letter to OPs No.1 and 2 with the direction and decision that admission of complainant alongwith others has not been considered. He further argued that OPs No.1 and 2 cheated the complainant by extorting huge amount. To prove that the complainant is consumer of the OP, the ld. counsel for the complainant produced the authorities cited in 2010(1) CPC page 142 titled as G.G.S. Indraprastha University Vs. Vaibhav, decided by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi AND 2008(2) CPC page 371 titled as IITT College of Engineering Vs. Manohar Singh Walia & Anr., decided by Hon’ble Union Territory Commission, Chandigarh.
6. From the authorities cited by ld. counsel for the complainant, it is clear that the complainant falls under the definition of consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
7. From the contents of the complaint, it is clear that Shri Daya Singh, father of the complainant, through whom the present complaint has been filed, has clearly mentioned in the complaint that an application has been moved to the office of ld. CJM cum-Secretary District Legal Services Authority Kaithal, who through its letter No.2208 dt, 27.10.17 directed the Distt. Education Officer, Kaithal to take necessary action and on this DEO Kaithal directed the BEO Pundri to look into the matter & take necessary action and also directed the BEO Pundri to send the report within a week positively, but the BEO Pundri in collusion with OPs No.1 and 2 have not taken any action till now.
8. From these facts, it is clear that in the matter in question, a direction has been issued by the CJM cum-Secretary District Legal Services Authority Kaithal. When the directions have not been followed, the proper way for the complainant was to approach the said authority, but the complainant has not done so. The complainant has availed the jurisdiction of one authority and that authority has taken action on the complaint of the complainant. Therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable.
9. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion and without going into any controversy of the case, we dismiss the complaint. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.25.05.2018.
(Parmod Kumar), (Jagmal Singh),
Member. President.
Present: Shri Hem Raj Wadhwa, Advocate for the complainant.
OPs ex parte.
Arguments heard. To come up on 25.5.2018 for pronouncement of order.
Dated:24.5.2018. Member. President.
Present: Shri Hem Raj Wadhwa, Advocate for the complainant.
OPs ex parte.
Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present ex parte complaint is dismissed being not maintainable. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated:25.05.2018. Member President.
