PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 09.04.2013 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 329 of 2012 – Green Field Public School Vs. M.K. Gupta by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner got his son Aman Gupta admitted with OP No. 1/Respondent No.1. Aman Gupta appeared in All India Secondary Examination in 2008 with Roll No. 5233032. After examination, he received certificate with a photograph of one girl in place of photograph of Aman Gupta. Complainant complained OP No. 1 for correction of certificate from OP No.3/Respondent No. 2. OP No. 1 asked complainant to deposit Rs.15,000/- as expenses for this work. Complainant visited office of OP NO. 3 for correction in the certificate, but his request was not acceded. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that original certificate given by complainant was forwarded along with complaint to Board for correction of certificate. Board issued second certificate, but without scanning the photograph of Aman Gupta and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 3 resisted complaint and submitted that District Forum, Delhi has no jurisdiction and complaint is time barred and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP No. 1 to get Secondary School Examination certificate from the Board with photograph of Aman Gupta by his own efforts and awarded Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. Appeal filed by OP No. 1 was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admissions stage and perused record. 4. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 handed over fresh certificate to Counsel for the petitioner with photograph of Aman Gupta and certificate was complete in all respects. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of deficiency on the part of OP No. 1, learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint, but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 6. Perusal of record reveals that on complaint being made by complainant to OP No.1, OP No. 1 sent examination certificate for correction to OP No. 3. Learned State Commission rightly observed that OP No. 1 has given full cooperation to get the fresh certificate from CBSE and, therefore, OP No.1 was not at fault and has not done any mistake. 7. Correction in the certificate was to be made only by OP No. 3 and OP No. 1 did whatsoever it could do for correction of the certificate and in such circumstances, no deficiency can be imputed on the part of OP No. 1. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. No doubt, there was mistake on the part of OP no. 3 in issuing certificate to Aman Gupta with photo of girl, but as District forum has not allowed complaint against OP No. 3 and complainant did not prefer any appeal against the order of District Forum, no compensation can be awarded to complainant for negligence of Respondent No. 2. 9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs. | 
