Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):
The opposite parties counsel filed a petition for considering the maintainability of this case.
2. The case of the opposite parties (petitioners) counsel is as follows: According to the petitioners this complaint is not maintainable either in law or in facts. It is contented that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. It is further contented that Education is not a commodity and matters relating to admission or tuition fees are not covered under Consumer Protection Act. The allegations put forward by the respondent /complainant with regard to harassment of respondent’s son in All Saints’ Public School, Adoor and expulsion from the said school are absolute falls. According to the petitioners, the school is a necessary party for the proceedings but respondent/complainant did not implead the said school as a party for the proceedings. Hence the case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. It is again contented that the entire complaint reveals an abnormal outburst of suppressed feelings, brutal hostility, vengeance and hidden motives against the petitioners. All these allegations are utter falsehood and lack of integrity of the complainant/respondent. The petitioners are responsible authorities of a decent school which caters to the bright future of the younger generation for more than a decade. It is further contented that the student is not comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act as per the various decision from the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence the petitioners (opposite parties) prays to dismiss the complaint with cost and compensatory cost to the opposite parties. The respondent/complainant in this case filed another I.A for impleading the education institution as the additional opposite party. The said petitioner is also numbered as I.A.No.99/16.
3. The brief fact of petitioners (I.A.No.99/16) follows: According to the complainant, at the time of filing this case before this Forum the complainant failed to implead the school in the party array and only the Principal, Manager and the Bishop of Malankara Catholic Diocese are the opposite party at the time of filing the complaint. It is contented that the school is a necessary party for the proceedings and if this Forum has not allowed to implead the school as the 4th additional opposite party the respondent/complainant will suffer irreparable injuries and damages.
4. We heard both I.A together and passed a common order in this two petitions. In I.A.No. 87/16 the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/opposite parties argued that this Forum has no right to try this case since the student is not a consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act 1986. In order to substantiate his claim the learned counsel placed so many decisions before us. In the decision reported in KLT(2) 1994 page 518 in Head Master, Poilkavu H.S. Vs.Murali, the Court find that the application of Principles of natural justice while dealing with the misconduct of a student held that what is required is ‘ fairness’ in action based on Rule 6 of KER 1959. In that decision the Hon’ble High Court emphasized the pivotal role of the Head Master or Principal in maintenance of discipline in an educational institutions. The case of the respondent/complainant herein as per the complaint is that the complainant’s son Rockey Roy was a student of opposite parties’ school and he is expelled from opposite parties’ school. At the time of expelling the said Rockey Roy the school authorities issued transfer certificate to him and it resulted the future of his son. It is contented by the school authorities that the hair style adopted by the son of the complainant is against the prevailing laws of the school and act of the complainant’s son with regard to his hair style is comes under grave violation of the discipline of the school. The respondent (complainant) clearly taken a stand to the effect that he has not violated any reasonable direction from the school authorities and has not violated any discipline of the school.
5. When we consider the evidence before us, it is to see that at this time we have to consider whether this Forum has right to entertain this case. We are of the view that when this Forum enjoying jurisdiction to try this case we have to look into the fact of the case. At this juncture, we are considering the question of maintainability as a preliminary issue. As per the decision reported in Revision Petition No. 3075/2015 our Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressel Commission has a view that the student is not a consumer. As per Para 5 of the said order it reads, “It is now well settled that the student is not a consumer. This view is supported by the number of Supreme Court authorities in Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha 2009(8) SCC 483, Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010(11)SCC 159 and Jagmitter Sain Bhagat vs. Dir.Health Services Haryana & Ors. 2013(10) SCC 136, P.T.Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust and Ors. In SLP (c) No. 22532 of 2012, Prof. K.K. Ramachandran vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 4133 of 2013 decided on 29/04/2013”.
6. In the decision reported in KLT 518, 1994 in which Our Hon’ble High Court find that – “Dismissal of Pupil – Rule do not necessite the application of principles of natural justice, directly on impliedly – Delinquent student or guardian need not be given an opportunity to be heard, in a proceedings under Rule.6 – The only requirement under the Rule is fairness in action”. In another decision reported in WP(C) No. 17243/16 of our Hon’ble High court it also find that the principal or Headmaster are the competent authority to maintain the discipline of an educational institution. When we peruse this case it reveals that the complainant’s son managed his hair style as his will and fancy. The said hair style was not according to the ‘disciplined hair style’ adopted by the opposite parties educational institution. All these facts have to be consider, when we look into the maintainability of this case. In the light of the above said decision, it is clear that the student is not comes under the preview of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 especially with regard the discipline of an educational institution. In the light of the above fact and the decisions of Hon’ble High court and our Hon’ble National Commission we too find that the case is not maintainable before this Forum. In the light of the above findings, there is no need for a detailed discussion with regard the I.A.No.99/16. The main prayer of the said I.A is only for impleading additional opposite party 4 the educational institution in the party array. The complainant filed this I.A.No.99/16 is only for avoiding the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties. As discussed above, we already find that the case filed by the complainant is not maintainable as such I.A 99/16 is also not to be allowed.
7. In the result, we pass the following orders:
- I.A 87/16 is allowed and the case is also dismissed
- I.A 99/16 is dismissed.
- The complainant is at liberty to agitate this matter in any other appropriate Forum.
(4) No order of cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of September, 2016.
(Sd/-)
P. Satheesh Chandran Nair, (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member –I) : (Sd/-)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II) : (Sd/-)
Appendix – Nil.
(By Order)
Copy to:- (1) Mini Roy, Andoor Thekkethil Veedu,
Parakkodu P.O, Adoor - 691 554
(2)George Kutty, Principal,
All Saints Public School & Junior College,
Adoor P.O – 691 523
(3)Fr. George Puthenpurayil, Local Manager,
All Saints Public School & Junior College,
Adoor P.O – 691 523
(4)Rev. Yohannan Mar Christostam, Bishop,
Malankara Catholic Diocese,
Catholic Bishop House,
Pathanamthitta – 689 645.
(5) The Stock File.
