BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Rajbeer Singh (minor aged 17 years) s/o Sh.Ranjit Singh, R/o H.No.295, Adarsh Nagar, Naya Gaon, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, through his father & natural guardian Sh.Ranjit Singh s/o Late Sh.Mewa Singh

….…Complainant

                                V E R S U S

1]     The Banyan Tree School, Sector 48-C, Chandigarh, through its Director.

2]     Ravinder Talwar, Director, The Banyan Tree School, Sector 48-C, Chandigarh.

3]     Varinder Tiwana, Principal, The Banyan Tree School, Sector 48-C, Chandigarh.

4]     Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), Sector 5, Panchkula, through its Regional Officer.

5]     Director Public Instructions (D.P.I.), Schools, Chandigarh, Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

                                        ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:    SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL                PRESIDENT

                DR. (MRS.) MADHU BEHL                    MEMBER

Argued by:             Sh.Mohinder Kumar, Advocate for complainant.

                             Sh.Ashish Sareen, Adv. for OPs No.1 to 3.

                             Sh.Aseem Aggarwal, Adv. for OP No.4.

                             OP No.5 exparte

PER  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

                Concisely put, the complainant was Class X student of OP No.1 School and paid Rs.1,00,000/- approx. as Tuition Fee & other charges including Hostel Charges to OP No.1.  It is averred that the complainant appeared in the Pre-Board Test conducted by OP No.1 School and had cleared the same.  Thereafter OP No.1 sent the examination forms of all the students of Class X including that of complainant to CBSE in response to which CBSE-OP No.4 issued Roll Numbers cum Admit Cards to all the students including the complainant and sent the same to OP No.1 School.  It is also averred that OP No.1 School supplied the Roll. Nos. cum Admit Card to all the students on 21.2.2009 but did not supply the same to the complainant.  The complainant as well as his mother visited OP No.1 & 5 a number of times and made written requests also to get the roll number cum admit card but all in vain, as a result the complainant could not appear in his Matriculation Examination and lost one precious year.  Therefore, alleging the above act of OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, causing the complainant loss of one precious year, great mental tension, physical harassment and financial loss, the present complaint has been instituted.

2]             OP No.1 to 3 filed joint reply and admitted that the complainant was their student in Class X.  It is stated that the performance and result of the complainant in various examination held in the session 2008 was very poor (Ann.R-1).  As regards sending of examination forms for issuing Roll Number cum Admit Card to the C.B.S.E., it is submitted that all the formalities were done in the month of August & September.  It is denied that the complainant had cleared Pre-Board Test conducted by the school authorities (Ann.C-1).  It is also stated that the reason for not issuing Roll Number cum Admit Card to the complainant was that he did not fulfill the conditions as laid in rules of C.B.S.E. i.e. shortage of attendance (Ann.C-2).  It is also submitted that the present compliant is not maintainable against the OPs as the complainant is not a consumer since there was neither any service provided by the school to the son of the complainant nor there was any deficiency in service on their part.  Denying all other allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3]             On behalf of OP No.4-C.B.S.E., Panchkula, Sh.Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate has appeared but did not file any reply & evidence and gave statement to the effect that no reply & evidence was to be filed on behalf of OP No.4.

4]             OP No.5 has been duly served with the notice but inspite of due service, none appeared on its behalf, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte.

5]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7]             The Learned Counsel of the OP has argued that the OP-4 is the Central Board of Secondary Education and is not amenable to the Jurisdiction of Consumer Fora.  In support of his contention the Learned Counsel referred to the cases of Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, Civil Appeal No. 3911 of 2003 decided by the Honorable Supreme Court of India on 4.09.09 and Revision Petition No.1121 of 2005, Deputy Registrar (Colleges) & Anr. Vs. Ruchika Jain & Ors. decided by the Honorable National Commission on 7.07.06.  Those cases related to the conduct of examination and the delay or deficiency therein, however, in the present case it is not so.  Here the question is whether the complainant should have been permitted to appear in the matriculation examination or not.  According to OP-4 they had already issued the admit card subject to certain conditions regarding the attendance of the complainant but the same was withheld by the OP-1 school.  It is argued that there was no deficiency on the part of the OP-4 nor has been alleged by the complainant. We are therefore of the opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable against OP-4 though for different reasons. 

8]             OP-4 has formulated certain rules and regulations for admission of candidates to appear in the examinations being held by it.  The bye laws 13-1(i) relating to regular course of study requires that a candidate should have attended at least 75% of the lectures delivered during the course.  However, as per the bye laws 14(ii) the shortage of 15% could be condoned in exceptional cases by the Chairman.  In this manner the minimum attendance required for appearing before the examination was 60%. As regards the attendance below 60%, it could be condoned in exceptional circumstances created on medical grounds such as candidates suffering from serious diseases like cancer, AIDS, TB etc. requiring long period of hospitalization. It is not the case of the complainant,  if he was suffering from any of these diseases. In this manner the complainant was required to attend at least 60% attendance during the continuation of the course to sit in the examination.  The OPs have placed on file Annexure C-2 which is the daily class attendance record of the complainant and others.  In the month of Oct, 08 the complainant attended lecture only for 10 days out of 30 and his total attendance rose to 160 out of 246 lectures. In the month of Nov, 08 the complainant attended 22 lectures out of 38 and his total attendance arose to 182  out of 332 lectures.  In Dec, 08 the complainant attended 30 lectures out of 48 and his attendance rose to 212 out of 370 lectures.  In Jan, 09 the complainant attended only 4 lectures out of 34 making it a total of 216 out of 404 lectures.  According to the OPs a special class was introduced and lectures were delivered in Feb, 09, the complainant did not attend any of the lectures and his attendance remained 216 out of 411 lectures.  When the percentage is worked out the complainant was required to attend at least 246 lectures out of 411. However, he had attended only 216 and therefore was not eligible to appear in the examination as he had not attended 60% of the lectures due to which his candidature was withheld.

9]             When the complainant himself was not serious about his studies and had not been attending the lectures, the OPs 1 to 3 were well within their rights to withhold the complainant, who did not possess any right to sit in the examination because he has not attended the requisite number of lectures.  The mere fact that the complainant had paid the fees was, therefore, not enough to allow the complainant to appear in the examination.

10]            The Learned Counsel for the complainant has also argued that since OP-4 had already issued the admit card as intimated vide Annexure C-10, the same therefore could not have been withheld by the OP-1.  This argument also is devoid of merit.  The formalities for issuance of admit card are completed in the month of August and September as mentioned in para 2 of the reply.  Upto September the complainant had attended 150 lectures out of 254, when only 152 lectures were required. In this manner the complainant was short of only 2 lectures when his examination fee was sent to the OP-4 and the OP-1 could expect that the shortage being too small would be covered by the complainant in the coming months.  The complainant instead of covering up the deficiency did not attend even 60% lectures in the coming months and therefore was lagged behind and became disentitled to be allowed to sit in the examination.  OP-1 was therefore well within their right to withhold the admit card and not allow the complainant to sit in the examination, in view of the byelaws framed by the OP-4.

11]            The complainant very well knew that he had not been attending the classes regularly and was short of lectures and therefore could not be permitted to sit in the examination but he dragged the OPs into this unnecessary litigation which could have been avoided.  If one precious year of the complainant was wasted that was due to his own fault and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The complainant not only arrayed the school as a party but its Director and Principal were also made personally liable in this complaint due to vindictiveness. There was no deficiency on the part of the OP-4, the Central Board of Secondary Education but even it was made a party in this complaint alongwith Director Public Instructions, who was not liable to render any service to him. The complaint was false and frivolous to the knowledge of the complainant and was filed with the sole motive to harass the OPs or to put pressure on them and to extract money.  He has requested for the refund of Rs.1.00 lakh which he paid as tuition fee etc. and also for an exorbitant amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation from the OPs which speaks volumes about the malafide intention of the complainant.  We are of the opinion that the complaint has no merit and the same deserves dismissal.  We order accordingly.

12]            Since the complaint is false and frivolous to the knowledge of the complainant. The complainant is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to each of the OPs under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as costs  for filing this false and frivolous complaint.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.