MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against the impugned order dated 29.7.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 2309/2006 Ramniwas Soni Vs. The Principal, Vaish Model Sr. Sec. School & Ors. by which, appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed in limine. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant filed complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency on the part of OP in charging excess amount of fees from his son Vikas Soni, who took admission in the school of OP in Class 11th. OP resisted claim. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, dismissed complaint on the ground that complainant does not fall within the ambit of consumer. Petitioner filed appeal and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal in limine against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard the petitioner in person at admission stage and perused record. 4. As per complaint, OP No.1/respondent charged fees from the complainant son at the time of admission and later on also charged illegal fees from his son. Thus, it becomes clear that fees was deposited by his son. Nowhere complainant has mentioned in the complaint that he has deposited fees for his son. He has also not mentioned in the complaint that he was authorized to file complaint by his son. Admittedly, at the time of filing complaint, complainant son was major and without any authorization, complainant had no locus standi to file complaint on behalf of his son and learned District Forum did not commit any mistake in dismissing complaint and learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeal in limine. 5. Petitioner submitted that parents can file complaint on behalf of their child for medical negligence and placed reliance on AIR 1801 SC 1801 - M/s. Spring Meadows Hospital and Anr. Vs. Harjol Ahluwalia. This citation does not support to the case of the petitioner, as in the aforesaid case minor was admitted to the hospital, whereas in the case in hand fees was deposited by complainant son and at the time of filing complaint, complainant son Vikas Soni was major and he only had locus standi to file complaint and complainant without authorization from his son had no locus standi to file complaint. Recently, in R.P. No. 3188 of 2010 Amita Sharma Vs. M/s. B.H.E.L. & Ors. decided on 1.3.2013, it was held that wife cannot file complaint on behalf of her husband without authorisation. Paragraph 15 of the judgment runs as under: 5. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner husband had been incapacitated in any manner or was prevented in any manner whatsoever, from filing the complaint. Moreover, in the complaint, it is nowhere pleaded that petitioner had been authorized by her husband to file complaint on his behalf. Thus, Ms. Amita Sharma is not a consumer as per provisions of the Act. Hence, complaint filed by her before the District Forum is not maintainable and present revision is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone 6. Thus, it becomes clear that complaint filed by the complainant on behalf of his major son without any authorization was not maintainable, as the complainant did not fall within the purview of consumer and learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeal in limine. Order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law which does not call for any interference. 7. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.