Delhi

North East

CC/46/2019

Vaishali (Minor) Through her mother Smt. Neha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajkiya Varisth Madhyamik Bal Vidhyalaya - Opp.Party(s)

21 Aug 2023

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.46/19

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Vaishali (Minor) Through her Mother Smt. Neha W/o Sh. Shyam Singh, R/o H. No. H-1138, Gali No. 1 Mansarovar Park, Shahdara Delhi 110032	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.               3.             4.	State (NCT) Through its Secretary At: Secretariat house, ITO, New Delhi   Rajkiya Varisth Madhyamik Bal Vidhyalaya Village Karawal Nagar, Vir Sararkar Complex, Delhi 110094 Through its Principal Sh. Madhu Kumar   Sh. Madhu Kumar Rajkiya Varisth Madhyamik Bal Vidhyalaya, Village Karawal Nagar, Vir Sawarkar Complex, Delhi 110094   Ms. Kamlesh (Class Teacher) At: Sarovdaya Kanya Vidhyalaya No. 2, Mansarovar Park, Shahdara, Delhi	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

09.04.2019 13.07.2023 21.08.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the daughter of the Complainant was student of class 9^th D in Sarvodaya Kanya Vidhyalaya No. 1. On 12.04.2018, daughter of the Complainant reached at school. During the lunch time, the Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 4 ordered the daughter of the Complainant to bring a big carton full of sanitary napkin from library at ground floor to 3^rd floor to her class room for distribution to the girls. Daughter of the Complainant refused to obey the order of Opposite Party    No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 4 due to her poor health. Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 4 pressurized the daughter of the Complainant to obey their order and also said some harsh word and force to comply the order. Then the daughter of the Complainant brought the carton from ground floor to 3^rd Floor through stairs. Only forty sanitation napkin were distributed and remaining were in carton. Then again Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 4 again placed an order to send back the carton to ground floor. Then daughter of the Complainant was going downstairs then due to weight and large size of carton and weak health, she glided down and edge of carton hitted the nose and head of the daughter of the Complainant due to which she sustained injuries on her head, on back side and neck of girl bent. Then Opposite Party No. 3 sent her back to home without providing any first aid treatment or medical check-up.  Then Complainant brought her daughter to GTB Hospital where the doctor seeing the serious condition of the daughter of the Complainant and treated the daughter of the Complainant and informed the Complainant that there was a fracture in a bone near to the brain. The daughter of the Complainant admitted in hospital for 5 days. Complainant spent Rs. 50,000/- on the treatment of her daughter. Complainant informed the police but they did not take any action. Complainant also lodged an FIR against the Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 4. Complainant also sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties but they did not take action. The Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 50,000/- for the medical expense, Rs. 18,00,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 to contest the case. Hence, Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party    No. 2 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 14.10.2022.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 3, Sh. Madhu Kumar (Principal)

3. Opposite Party No. 3 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the Complainant is not a consumer within the definition of the Consumer Protection Act.  Opposite Party No. 3 has denied the allegations of the Complainant and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 4, Smt. Kamlesh (Class Teacher)

4. Opposite Party No. 4 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the Complainant is not a consumer within the definition of the Consumer Protection Act.  Opposite Party No. 4 has denied the allegations of the Complainant and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 3

5. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 3, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No. 3 and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

6. The Complainant in support of her case filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

 

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 4 (Smt. Kamlesh)

7. To support her case Opposite Party No. 4 has filed her affidavit, wherein, she has supported her case as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

8. We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 4.  We have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that the daughter of the Complainant was a student of Sarvodaya kanya Vidhyalaya. Mr. Madhu kumar was the principal of the school and Smt. Kamlesh was the class teacher of her daughter. Her daughter was forced by them to bring some carton downstairs and thereafter she was forced to taken the carton upstairs. During this process her daughter has sustained injuries as she had fallen due to the load taken by her. The case of the Opposite Parties is that the school is not covered under the definition of consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act.  
9. Now the question is that whether the Schools/Education Institutions are covered under the Consumer Protection Act. In a case decided by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat on 08.10.2021 in appeal no. 2018/224. It was held as under:                                                                                                                                                                                      “12. It is settled law, as stated in the aforementioned precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Commission, that Educational Institutions do not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and education which includes co-curricular activities such as swimming, is not a “service” within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. I, therefore, concur with the view of the State Commission that the Complainant is not a consumer and the Complaint not being covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is not maintainable.”
10. Therefore, in view of the above judgment the Complainant is not a consumer and therefore the complaint is dismissed.
11. Order announced on 21.08.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)