Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2.        Captioned appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.        The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant no.1 is a minor and the father of the complainant no.1 represented him. It is alleged inter alia that  the complainant no.2 being the Vice President of Parents Association of St. Xavier’s High School, Jagatsinghpur found that some teaching staff did not have requisite qualification as per C.B.S.E. norm and the school did not have a play ground and there is no computer lab in the school but the school is collecting the money for computer education. It is also alleged that the ratio of teacher and student is not as per norm of the C.B.S.E. The fee of the school is very high as compared to the amenities provided by the school. When there is allegation by the complainant on behalf of parents to the Principal of the School, the Principal-opposite party no.2 issued notice to show cause as to why compulsory transfer certificate to his son should not be issued. The complainant gave reply to the show cause notice issued by the opposite party no.2 and filed complaint. The opposite party nos. 1 and 2 denied about the allegation and stated that the case is not maintainable.

4.        Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties passed the following order:-

                      xxx           xxx          xxx

    “ Hence it is ordered.

    The complaint petition is allowed in part. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.4,00,000/- to both the complainants for violating the Right to Education Act-2009 of Article 21(A) of the Constitution of India and pay Rs. 1,00,000/- for deficiency in service and mental agony caused by the complainants.

    The opposite parties no. 1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards cost of litigation.

    The above order is to be carried out within 30 days from the date of order.”

5.        Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum failed to appreciate the material on record and has not discussed any issue, but passed the impugned order. He submitted that since the District Forum is a statutory authority, it has no right to pass any such order. He drew our attention to the operative part of the impugned order. So he submitted that the impugned order should be set aside by allowing the appeal.

6.        Considered the submissions, perused the D.F.R. and the impugned order.

7.        The allegation made in the complaint petition appears to be a criticism to the authority of the School and the show cause notice issued to complainant no.1 has no basis. Therefore, we are of the view that the complaint is by default filed. It needs no action to be issued. On the other hand show cause is also proved  this case. Therefore, we have no hesitation to say that the impugned order should be set aside and accordingly we set aside the impugned order.

           The appeal is accordingly allowed. No cost.

           Statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with accrued interest, if any, on proper identification. 

           DFR be sent back forthwith.

           Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.