View 2450 Cases Against Education
Jaskaran Singh filed a consumer case on 24 Jan 2024 against Central Board of secondary Education in the Faridkot Consumer Court. The case no is CC/20/116 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Jan 2024.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
C.C. No. : 116 of 2020
Date of Institution : 10.08.2020
Date of Decision : 24.01.2024
Jaskaran Singh aged about 16 ½ years minor, son of Surjit Singh son of Veer Singh, resident of Village Bargari, Tehsil Jaitu District Faridkot through his father Surjit Singh son of Veer Singh resident of Village Bargari, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot. .....Complainant
Versus
Complaint under Section 35 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Quorum: Smt Kiranjit Kaur Arora, President,
Sh Vishavkant Garg, Member,
Present: Smt Baljinder Kaur, Ld Counsel for complainant,
Sh Rajinder Singh, Ld Counsel for OP-1,
OP-2 Exparte.
* * * * * * *
ORDER
(Kiranjit Kaur Arora, President)
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against OPs for deficiency in service and for directions to OPs to correct the name of mother of complainant in the certificate of 10th issued by OPs and for further direction to pay compensation for inconvenience, harassment and mental agony suffered by complainants besides litigation expenses as the court may deem fit.
cc-116 of 2020
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he was the student of OP-2/Dasmesh Global School, Bargari. It is submitted that complainant was born on 08.03.2004 and name of his mother is Jagdev Kaur and name of his father is Surjit Singh. It is further submitted that in Birth Certificate issued on 25.03.2004 (Ex C-1), name of mother of complainant is mentioned as Jagdev Kaur at Sr No. 23. It is further submitted that mother of complainant passed away in 2015 and after her death, his father solemnized second marriage with Mandeep Kaur. While filling the form for the tenth examination, name of mother of complainant was inadvertently written as Mandeep Kaur Bhari, but as birth certificate, name of his real mother was Jagdev Kaur. This fact came to the notice of complainant, when he received certificate of 10th wherein name of his mother was mentioned as Mandeep Kaur Bhari. Complainant requested OPs to correct the name of his mother as per birth certificate issued by Local Registrar, Births and Death, Gram Panchayat, Village Bargari, but OPs flatly refused to accommodate and did not make any correction in the name of mother name in his certificate. All this act and conduct of Ops amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Complainant has prayed for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation for inconvenience, harassment and 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 19.08.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.
cc-116 of 2020
4 On receipt of the notice, OP-1 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that this Commission has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. On merits, OP-1 has denied all the allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that all the documents were prepared by answering OP as per record available with them and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. Allegations levelled by complainant are false and frivolous and it is a misuse of process of law. All the other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering opposite party.
5 On receipt of notice, Sh Sukhjinder Singh appeared on behalf of OP-2 but thereafter, despite availing sufficient opportunities, OP-2 neither bothered to appear in this Commission nor filed any written statement to contest the allegations of the complainant and therefore, vide order dated 11.11.2021, OP-2 was proceeded against exparte.
6 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-1, documents Ex C-2 to C-3 and then, closed the evidence.
7 Despite availing sufficient opportunities, OP-1 did not conclude its evidence and therefore, vide order dated 05.09.2022, evidence of OP-1 closed by order of this Commission.
cc-116 of 2020
8 We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party no.1.
9 From the careful perusal of document Ex C-2 which is copy of Detail Marks Card issued by Central Board of Secondary Education/ OP-1 for Class X 2020, it is evident that complainant was student of Dasmesh Global School, Bargari, Faridkot, Punjab and there remains no doubt to the pleadings of complainant that name of mother of complainant is mentioned as adopted by Mandeep Kaur Bhari and against the father’s name it is mentioned as adopted by Surjeet Singh Bhari. Document Ex C-1 copy of Birth Certificate, issued by Registrar, Births & Deaths, Gram Panchayat, Bargari, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot, clearly reveals the fact that name of mother of complainant is Jagdev Kaur and name of father of complainant is Surjeet Singh.
10 Grievance of complainant is that despite several requests, OPs have not issued amended certificate of 10th to him and OPs have not corrected the name of his mother in their record, which amounts to deficiency in service and it reveals the fact that grievance of complainant is not redressed by OPs. On the other hand, plea taken by OP-1 is that all documents were prepared by them as per record available with them. This is beyond doubt that record regarding particulars of complainant containing name of father, mother and birth certificate was made available to OP-1 by School Authorities, i.e OP-2., but there is no rebuttal on behalf of OP-2 and it seems that OP-2 has admitted the allegations of complainant.
cc-116 of 2020
11 At the time of admission of a student, it is mandatory for all parents to furnish date of birth certificate of their ward with school authorities and there seems no genuine reason that complainant did not provide birth certificate with School. There seems to be negligence on the part of school authorities in not mentioning the correct name of mother of complainant as per birth certificate made available with them by complainant or his family. And act of OP-1 in not making any effort for correcting the name of mother of complainant with their record and with the record available with OP-2, amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his grievance and all documents placed on record are authentic and are beyond any doubt.
12 It is observed that while sending any document pertaining to particulars of name of mother, name of father or guardian or regarding address to CBSE, Panchkula, school should check these things keenly and very carefully and should match all these documents with the birth certificate and other documents issued by Government. Had this precaution of making thorough and careful checking been taken by OP-2 at the initial stage and at the time of sending these particulars to OP-1 and at the time of sending registration at tenth level, nature of case would have been different as there would have been no grievance of complainant. There is no doubt that complainant as well as his father made several requests to OPs to correct the name of mother of complainant as per Birth Certificate in their record in accordance with the particulars given by them. At that time when complainant approached OPs with request to change mother’s name as
cc-116 of 2020
per Birth Certificate, OPs should have made correction keeping in view the Birth Certificate issued by Registrar of Births and Deaths, Gram Panchayat, Bargari, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot, Punjab. Hence, in these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that act of OPs in not rectifying their own record amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
13 In the light of above discussion, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are ordered to change the name of mother of complainant from Mandeep Kaur Bhari to Jagdev Kaur in their record. As complainant has suffered huge harassment and mental agony at the hands of OPs, therefore, OPs are burdened with cost. OPs are directed to pay Rs.5000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses. Compliance be made jointly and severally within 45 days of the receipt of the copy of the order.
14 Complaint case could not be decided within stipulated period due to pendency of cases and incomplete quorum. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Commission
Dated : 24.01.2024
Member President
(Vishav Kant Garg) (Kiranjit Kaur Arora)
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.