Justice Pritam Pal, President

1.         This appeal by  complainant      is directed against the  order dated 12.1.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh  whereby    his  complaint bearing  No.413 of 2009 was dismissed  with costs.

2.       The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum.

3..       The facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated  thus ;

            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.   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   but   it    did not supply the same to the complainant.  The complainant as well as his mother visited OPs 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 which  the complainant could not appear in his Matriculation Examination and lost one precious year.  Hence, alleging   deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum. 

 4.       On the other hand, the case of         OPs No.1 to 3 before the District Forum was  that the complainant was their student in Class X, whose   performance and result   in   examinations held in the session 2008 was very poor and he could not clear Pre-Board Test conducted by the school authorities .  According to OPs,   roll Number cum Admit Card to the complainant was not issued because  he did not fulfill the conditions as laid in rules of C.B.S.E. on account of  shortage of attendance.  The maintainability of the complaint was also questioned   as the complainant was not a consumer since there was neither any service provided by the school to him,  nor there was any deficiency in service on their part. A prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 

5.         However, on behalf of OP No.4-C.B.S.E., Panchkula, Sh.Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate   appeared but did not file any reply & evidence and gave statement before the District Forum to the effect that no reply & evidence was to be filed on behalf of OP No.4. On behalf of OP NO.5- DPI Schools , none appeared despite service and it suffered ex parte proceedings.

 6.          The learned District Consumer Forum after going through the  evidence  and hearing   learned counsel for the  parties came to the conclusion that  there was no merit in the complaint  and dismissed the same by directing the complainant to pay Rs.10,000/- to each of the OPs as costs under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 for filing false and frivolous complaint.    

7.            We have heard learned counsel for the  appellant  and gone through the file carefully.  The sole point of arguments raised on behalf of the appellant is that the  complainant who was a minor, being hostler  was under the guardianship of the school authorities and for a prolonged period he did not attend the school but they did not bother to inform the parents that their ward was skipping  the classes. He contended that the District Forum has traveled much beyond equity and fair play in awarding the exorbitant costs  of Rs.10,000/- to each of the OPs because  OP No.5 never appeared before the Forum and suffered ex parte proceedings whereas  OP NO.4 neither filed reply nor lead evidence  and OPs NO.1 to 3 were part and parcel of one institution who were all represented by one lawyer.

8.              We have given our thoughtful consideration to the sole point of arguments put forth on behalf of the appellant and find the same to be devoid of any merit, inasmuch-as it was required on the part of  parents of  complainant also to enquire about the attendance  and performance of their ward in the school. In the instant  case  the complainant did not attend classes  regularly and as observed by the learned District Forum, he was required to attend 246 classes out of total 411 as per bye laws of CBSE but the complainant had attended only 216 which was below the minimum required attendance of 60% of the lectures, so his candidature was withheld.  The learned District Forum rightly observed that the complainant was short of lectures and as such he was not permitted to sit in the examination and there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. In the given facts and circumstances  , we do not find it a fit case to issue notice and dismiss the appeal in limine.

9.          However, before parting with this order, we feel that complainant Rajbeer Singh who  is a student  has already suffered financial loss as well as one academic year, though on account of his own fault but in the given   circumstances , we feel that the penalty of Rs.10,000/-  ordered by the District Forum to be paid to each of OPs  under Section-26 of the Consumer Protection Act as costs is not at all warranted. Hence, the impugned order qua imposition of said costs is set aside, without issuing notice to OPs of the appeal.  In case OPs  feel aggrieved of this order in any manner , they would be at liberty to approach this Commission for getting the appeal revived. 

            Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.