PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          Aggrieved by the order dated 31.5.2012 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram in First Appeal No. 746 of 2011, the Principal of Good Shepherd Modern

English School, Palunda has filed the present petition.  The appeal before the State Commission was also filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.9.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram in complaint case No. 161 of 2011.  By the said order the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the petitioner herein to issue fresh transfer certificate of the student showing his character as ‘Good’ and rectify the mistake in the Date of Birth and to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- besides Rs. 2000/- as litigation charges.  In appeal, the State Commission has upheld the finding of the District Forum in regard to deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner-School by giving detailed reasons but at the same time modified the order in the manner that the payable compensation has been reduced from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- only because the complainant themselves had claimed a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- only.

2.      We have heard Mr. Wills Mathews, learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions.  The facts and circumstances, which led to the filing of the complaint are amply noted in the orders of the fora below and need no repetition at our end.  The dispute arose when the complainants/parents of the student Muhammed Ismayil after his successful completion of 10^th standard, requested the

petitioner-school to issue a Transfer Certificate (TC) along with related documents for admission in Plus 1 class in some other school and also sought for a correction in the Date of Birth in the School Leaving Certificate, which was mistakenly noted in the school records.  The petitioner-school demanded a sum of Rs. 39,000/- as the fees for Plus 1 and Plus 2 studies on the strength of certain stipulations in the Brochure, which made it obligatory on a student to study all the classes up till Plus 2 in the school of the petitioner or to pay the fees for the remaining classes and refused to give the certificate unless the fees were paid.  This led to the filing of the complaint.  It appears that during the pendency of the complaint, the petitioner issued a school leaving certificate but they mentioned the character of the student ‘Bad’.  That was seen by the fora below as an act of malafide on the part of the petitioner.  For the above stated reasons, therefore the direction was issued to issue a fresh ‘Good’ character certificate and also to rectify the mistake in the Date of Birth.

3.      Mr. Mathews would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that the same are not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence and material brought on record.  He challenged the very maintainability of the complaint before the District Forum on the ground that the kind of

dispute i.e. issuing Transfer Certificate and a good character certificate was not within the jurisdiction of the District Forum and it was based on the objective satisfaction of the petitioner-school as to what type of certificate should be issued to the student going by his performance and conduct in the school.  We have noted this submission only to be rejected because in the case in hand the things are not as simple as claimed by the learned counsel.  Complainants filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the school authorities in not issuing school leaving certificate and insisting on the complaints to pay fee for studies in Plus 1 and Plus 2 in their school based on certain stipulations at the time of admission of student.  They maintained the said stand before the District Forum that they were not issuing the certificate because fees have not been paid.  In our view the issuance of a certificate with a ‘bad’ character endorsement was an act of vendetta on the part of the school authorities in order to mar the career of the student because the complainant had approached the District Forum against the malpractice of the school in not issuing the school leaving certificate and insisting for fees for two years which the son of the complainant did not want to study in their school.  Such an attitude of the petitioner-educational institute was wholly unjust and must be condemned in severest terms as has been done by the State Commission by observing as under:

          “Heard both parties.  On a perusal of the records we find that the school prospectus for the year 2007-2008 of the appellant produced along with the Appeal Memorandum states that the student is liable to pay the entire fees.  It is to be pointed out that the appellant had not rendered any service to the student for the plus 1 and plus 2 classes and no consideration is to be paid for that period.  It is also stated in the prospectus that the students who leave the school when they are in the VIII, IX, X, XI or XII should pay the entire fees for all the other years (Fees for all five Academic Years).  The same rule is applicable for those joining in the XI standard.  It is to be noted that collecting of fees from the students for the service not rendered also amounts to unfair trade practice.  The insertion of an illegal condition will not be a binding clause with the students and is unsustainable.  We find that no fees can be collected from the students for the period the student had not attended or studied.  It is also to be pointed out that the complainant disputed the undertaking given at the time of admission which is not proved properly.  If at all any undertaking obtained from the complainant, it is to be presumed that at the time of admission the school authorities are in a dominant position and the student / parent might be under pressure to sign the undertaking in order to join the school.  So an illegal act could not be made legal by force or under compelling situations.  The TC was issued to the complainant in pursuance of the interim order of the District Forum.  The inscription in the TC against the ‘character as bad’ and further noting regarding dues show the arrogance and disobedience towards the order of the Forum below.  Nothing was on record to show that the character of the complainant’s son was bad.  WE find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the non-remittance of the entire fees for two years was the sole reason for not issuing the TC which resulted in the filing of the complaint before the Forum below by the complainant cannot be attributed to the ‘character-bad’.  It is true that the child completed his 10^th standard with 56% marks.  Though the Head of the

institution is the person to issue the character certificate he is bound to issue a certificate which does not extinguish the future career of a budding innocent child.  There is no case pleaded or proved that the character of the child is bad and the issuance of the transfer certificate.  There is no complaint against the complainant that he defaulted any payment of the fees upto the 10^th standard.  So we find that there is no dues to be paid on account of fees of the complainant’s son and the appellant is directed to issue the fresh TC as ordered by the Forum below.”

4.      In our view, once the State Commission has appropriately modified the order passed by the District Forum by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- only, the petitioner ought to have gracefully accepted the same and should not have approached this Commission with the present proceedings.  The order of the State Commission is well reasoned and suffers from no illegality, material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error, which warrants any interference by this Commission.  The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal-Aid-Account of this Commission within four weeks, failing which recovery certificate shall be issued to the concerned Collector for realization of the amount of the cost.