View 2441 Cases Against Education
Mohit Gupta filed a consumer case on 15 Nov 2021 against Central Board of Secondary education in the Faridkot Consumer Court. The case no is CC/20/1 and the judgment uploaded on 04 Feb 2022.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT
Complaint No. : 01 of 2020
Date of Institution : 03.01.2020
Date of Decision : 15.11.2021
Mohit Gupta aged about 20 years, s/o Sanjeev Kumar Gupta r/o House No.B-3/249, Street No.5, Clock Tower, Faridkot, District Faridkot.
.....Complainant
Versus
...............OPs
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
(Now Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019)
cc no. 01 of 2020
Quorum: Smt. Parampal Kaur, Member,
Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.
Present: Sh Rajwinder Singh Brar, Ld Counsel for complainant,
Sh Navjot Singh Wahniwal, Ld Counsel for OP-3,
OP-1 and OP-2 Exparte.
ORDER
(Param Pal Kaur, Member)
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 complainant and his parents on the Grand Sheet cum Certificate of Performance Central School Examination Session 2013-2015 and for further directing Ops to pay Rs. One lac as compensation for causing delay in his abroad studies and Rs.50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.
2 Briefly stated, case of the complainant is that complainant completed his regular studies from standard Prep-II
cc no. 01 of 2020
to standard 10th from Baba Farid Public School and at the time of admission in said school, the name of complainant was got registered as Mohit Gupta, name of his father as Sanjeev Gupta and name of mother of complainant was registered as Suman Gupta, but due to negligence of Ops, surname of complainant and his parents was not mentioned in the Grand Sheet cum Certificate of Performance Central School Examination Session 2013-2015. When complainant checked his exam result on website of Ops in year 2015, he immediately requested OP-1 for correction of names. Despite issuance of letter, reminder and several requests made by complainant, Ops have not corrected the name of complainant and his parents and did not add their surname Gupta in the grand sheet cum certificate. Complainant wanted to go abroad for higher studies, but due to negligence of Ops, visa consultants every time refused to take his case due to incorrect name of complainant and his parents. Complainant approached Ops and made them several requests, but all in vain and they did not bother to correct the name of complainant in grant sheet cum certificate. All this act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and
cc no. 01 of 2020
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 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.
4 On receipt of the notice, OP-3 filed written reply wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP as they have already taken up the matter for correction of surname particulars of complainant with OP-2, which is competent to make the necessary correction. It is further averred that answering OP has no objection if correction is made by CBSE. However, on merits, OP-3 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that certificate in question has been issued by OP-1 and moreover, answering OP has written letter to OP-2 for correction surname particulars of
cc no. 01 of 2020
complainant. 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.
5 Notice issued to OP-1 and OP-2 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 Commission on behalf of OP-1 and OP-2 on date fixed either in person or through counsel, therefore, vide order dated 03.03.2020, OP- 1 and OP-2 were 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.CW1/A and documents Ex C-1 to C-13 and then, closed the evidence.
cc no. 01 of 2020
7 Ld Counsel for OP-3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Inderjit Singh OP-3/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP-3.
8 We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as opposite party no.3 and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents placed on the record by respective parties.
9 From the careful perusal of the record, it is observed that case of the complainant is that complainant completed his regular studies from beginning to standard 10th from Baba Farid Public School/OP-3 and at the time of admission his name was registered as Mohit Gupta, father’s name as Sanjeev Gupta and name of mother was registered as Suman Gupta, but due to negligence of Ops, surname of complainant and his parents was not mentioned in the Grand Sheet cum Certificate of Performance Central School Examination Session 2013-2015. Grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated requests, issuance of letters and reminder, Ops did not
cc no. 01 of 2020
do anything needful to correct the particulars regarding name and surname of complainant and his parents in his certificate, which is a deficiency in service. Prayer for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses is made. In reply, controverting the allegations of complainants, ld counsel for OP-3 asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part as certificate in question is not issued by them. Said certificate has been issued by OP-1 and only OP-2 is competent to make necessary correction. Moreover, OP-3 has no objection if order for requisite correction in the particulars of surname of complainant is made by ld Commission. It is further averred that OP-3 has already taken up the matter with OP-2 and written over a letter to OP-2 for making correction in the particulars of complainant.
10 Careful perusal of the case file shows that it is the admitted case of parties that complainant passed out his 10 from the school of OP-3 but in the certificate of 10th issued by OP-1, particulars in respect of surname of complainant and his mother and father are not properly mentioned. Name of complainant is Mohit
cc no. 01 of 2020
Gupta, but surname is not mentioned in certificate in dispute issued by Ops. Moreover, name of mother of complainant is Suman Gupta, but again Ops have not mentioned her name Gupta alongwith her name and even name of father of complainant, which is written as Sanjeev Kumar Gupta at the time of admission, is wrongly mentioned as ‘Sanjeev’ instead of properly writing the same as Sanjeev Kumar Gupta. Certificate issued by Ops bears incorrect particulars in respect of name and surname of complainant and his parents. OPs did not pay any heed to his genuine requests and refused to help him. Now, grievance of complainant is that OPs are not rectifying his certificate by incorporating the surname of complainant alongwith name of complainant and names of his father and mother. He has prayed for justice.
11 There is no doubt to the pleadings of complainant in the light of documents produced by him on record. There is no denial by OP-3 regarding grievance of complainant. It is also proved from the document Ex C-11 i.e copy of Aadhar Card of complainant that his name is Mohit Gupta; Ex C-6, copy of PAN Card
cc no. 01 of 2020
of complainant also proves this fact that his name is Mohit Gupta; further from Ex C-7 copy of aadhar card of father of complainant, there remains no doubt that name of father of complainant is Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, which is wrongly mentioned as only Sanjeev Kumar in said certificate. Similarly, copy of aadhar card of mother of complainant Ex C-9 that bears her name as Suman Gupta and Ex C-10 copy of her PAN Card also narrates the same that name of mother of complainant is Suman Gupta. Documents place on record by complainant are fully authentic and self explanatory. OP-1 and OP-2 who issued certificate in question are exparte in present case. There is no doubt that complainant made several requests to OPs to correct the particulars regarding his name and name of his parents in said certificate and to insert the his Surname alongwith name of his parents in said certificate. Moreover, when complainant approached OPs with request to correct the particulars in respect of names of his parents in their record, OPs should have made correction. Hence, in these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that act of OPs in not rectifying their own
cc no. 01 of 2020
record is inappropriate and it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
12 In the light of above discussion, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are ordered to rectify their record by incorporating the surname of complainant with the name of complainant, alongwith name of his mother and with the name of his father. Ops are directed to write the name of complainant as Mohit Gupta, name of his mother as Suman Gupta and name of father of complainant as Sanjeev Kumar Gupta and issue fresh Grand Sheet cum Certificate of Performance Central School Examination Session 2013-2015 with correct names and particulars after incorporating their surname. OP-1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-jointly and severally as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made by all opposite parties within one month of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainants shall be entitled to proceed under section 71 and 72 of
cc no. 01 of 2020
the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be issued to parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced on
Dated: 15.11.2021
(Vishav Kant Garg) (Param Pal Kaur)
Member Member
cc no. 01 of 2020
Mohit Gupta Vs CBSE & others
Present: Sh Rajwinder Singh Brar, Ld Counsel for complainant,
Sh Navjot Singh Wahniwal, Ld Counsel for OP-3,
OP-1 and OP-2 Exparte.
Arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Copy of the order be issued to parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced on
Dated: 15.11.2021
(Vishav Kant Garg) (Param Pal Kaur)
Member Member
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.