DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOR`UM, BATHINDA.
CC.No. 312 of 02-07-2012
Decided on 22-10-2012
Gurdeep Singh aged about 42 years son of Malkiat Singh s/o Jaggar Singh r/o Vill. Ghudda, Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda.
.......Complainant
Versus
1.Punjab School Education Board, SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Secretary.
2.Principal/Head Master, Govt, Senior Secondary School Ghudda, Distt. Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite parties: Ms. Deepshika, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Jaswinder Singh, A.R of opposite party No.2.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant's son Manpreet Singh was a student of the opposite party No.2 and admitted in 12th class (Arts) and was issued Roll No.15 as a regular student. Before getting the admission the son of the complainant has passed 11th class from the school of the opposite party No.2. Few days back when the complainant's son went to school for attending the classes, he was conveyed by the opposite party No.2 that he cannot join the classes and his admission cannot be sent to the opposite party No.1 as he has failed in Math in 10th class. The complainant's son had shown the result card issued by the opposite party No.1 to the opposite party No.2, in which he was declared pass. The complainant's son has even produced the result of the Internet which was given by the opposite party No.2 and also produced the result card of 10th class of Ist Semester vide his Roll No.1111657322 vide its registration No.B-080-BTD-S-329806 dated 9.2.2012 but the opposite party No.2 did not consider both the result cards of 10th class and threatened that his admission would be cancelled. The complainant's son wrote an application under the threat regarding appearing again in Math paper. The complainant alleged that the receiving of the application from the minor is violation of Indian Contract Act, as any contract with minor is void. The complainant had requested many times to the opposite parties to give the permission to his son for continuing the classes and admission be sent to the opposite party No.1 but they did not consider his requests. Previously, the complaint was filed by the complainant but the same was withdrawn with the permission to file the fresh one on the technical grounds. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking the directions to the opposite parties to give the permission to his son to join the classes of 12th class, to send the admission fee of his son to the opposite party No.1 alongwith cost and compensation.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 after appearing before this forum has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the complaint is not covered under the provisions of 2 (1) (o) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prashad Sinha in which it has been held that the Board is not a 'Service Provider' and a student who takes an examination is not a 'Consumer' and consequently, the complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board and has also referred many other judgments on this matter to support its aspect. The opposite party No.1 pleaded that the complainant's son has appeared in the first semester held in September 2010 under Roll No.1111657322 through Government Senior Secondary School Ghudda and his result was declared as re-appear in Math & Social Studies upto September 2011. After that the complainant's son has appeared in the first semester held in March 2011 to appear in the subjects of Math & Social Studies but he did not pass in this session and his result was declared as re-appear Math & Social Studies upto September 2011 and simultaneously he approached in Second Semester held in September 2011 under Roll No.1211657322 in full subject through the abovesaid school and his result of second semester was declared as re-appear in English & Math upto March 2012. The complainant's son appeared in the first semester of re-appear subjects i.e. Math & Social Studies held in September 2011 in which his result was declared as passed and detail marks card Sr. No.354373 was issued to him. The complainant's son simultaneously appeared in two subjects i.e. English & Math held in September 2011 under Roll No.1211657322 and his result was declared as re-appear in Math upto 2012. The complainant's son got 38 marks in English and 23 marks in Math Theory and 9 marks in internal assessment out of 30 marks it shows that he was failed in the internal assessment. So due to this fact the result of the complainant's son was declared Math upto 2012 and detail marks card Sr.No.364810 was already issued to him through ordinary post.
3. The opposite party No.2 has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the true facts of the case are that the complainant's son has taken admission in 12th class by showing the internet copy of the result card of Matriculation Reappear Examination/Open School Result held in September 2011 Sem I/ Sem II which was got downloaded by him from India Results.com, whereby he was shown as pass candidate. Every re-appear student is considered as private candidate of the opposite party No.2 and liable to produce his result before the Head of the respective institution in which he studies. As the complainant's son did not produce the passing certificate of 10th class re-appear exam(Maths) issued by the appropriate authority i.e. the opposite party No.1. So as the admission of the complainant's son cannot be continued as per the instructions dated 27.4.2012 issued by the opposite party No.1. The complainant's son did not submit the re-appear result (Maths) of 10th class within prescribed time period that created doubt to the opposite party No.2 to clear the real position of the result. The opposite party No.2 downloaded the result of the complainant's son from the website of the opposite party No.1 in which his result has been shown fail as such his candidature has been rejected.
4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
6. The dispute in the present complaint is regarding seeking the directions to the opposite parties to give the permission to the complainant's son to continue in the class 12th and to send the admission fee of his son to the opposite party No.1.
7. The submissions of the complainant are that the opposite party No.2 did not allow his son to attend the classes and his admission cannot be sent to the opposite party No.1 as his son has failed in Math in 10th class. The complainant's son had shown his result card issued by the opposite party No.1 to the opposite party No.2, in which he was declared pass. The complainant's son had also produced the result of Internet which was given by the opposite party No.2 and produced the result card of 10th class of Ist Semester vide roll No.1111657322 vide registration No.B-080-BTD-S-329806 dated 9.2.2012 but the opposite party No.2 did not consider both the result cards of 10th class and threatened that his admission will be cancelled.
8. On the other hand, the submissions of the opposite parties are that the complainant's son is not a consumer as defined under section 2 (1) (o) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the Board is not a 'Service Provider' and a student who takes an examination is not a 'Consumer' and the complaint under the 'Act' is not maintainable against the Board.
9. The complainant's son appeared in the first semester of 10th class examination held in September 2010 under Roll No.1111657322 through Government Senior Secondary School Ghudda and his result was declared re-appear in Math & Social Studies upto September 2011. After that the complainant's son has appeared in the first semester held in March 2011 to appear in the subjects of Math & Social Studies but he did not pass in this session and his result was declared as re-appear Math & Social Studies upto September 2011 and simultaneously he appeared in Second Semester held in September 2011 under Roll No.1211657322 in all subjects through the abovesaid school and his result of second semester was declared as re-appear in English & Math upto March 2012. The complainant's son appeared in the first semester of re-appear subjects i.e. Math & Social Studies held in September 2011 in which he was declared as pass and detail marks card Sr. No.354373 was issued to him. The complainant's son simultaneously appeared in two subjects i.e. English & Math held in September 2011 under Roll No.1211657322 and his result was declared as re-appear Math upto 2012. The complainant's son had got 38 marks in English and 23 marks in Math Theory and 9 marks in internal assessment out of 30 marks, it shows that he was failed in the internal assessment. Due to this fact the result of the complainant's son was declared failed in Math upto 2012 and detail marks card Sr.No.364810 was issued to him.
10. Thus from the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file this Forum observed that the case in hand is to seek the directions to the opposite parties to allow the complainant's son to continue in class 12th and his admission be sent to the opposite party No.1 by the opposite party No.2. The dispute is with the school and board whereas the board is not a service provider as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, 2009 CTJ 1057 (SC)(CP). The complainant's son is not a consumer under the Act as Board is not a 'service provider' and the complainant is not a consumer under the C.P Act, as such this complaint is not maintainable against the Board. Therefore the present complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party No.2. With regard to the opposite party No.1 the admissions are given on the basis of the result of the previous classes, the complainant's son has failed to pass the 10th class examination so no direction can be given to the opposite party No.1 to continue him in 12th class or to send his admission to the opposite party No.2. Moreover this is the internal matter of the opposite party No.2 to send the admission of the students to the opposite party No.1 as per instructions/guidelines/rules and regulations and they have to check whether the complainant/student has passed the previous board class or not.
11. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
22-10-2012
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
