Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/579/2021

Karandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The British School - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

24 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	579/2021
Date of Institution	:	01.09.2021
Date of Decision	:	24.05.2024

 

                                       

 

Karandeep Singh through Natural Guardian Jaswant Singh (Father) H. No 2525/B, Sector 47C, CHANDIGARH (UT), Pin 160 047 Mobile No 9888865056 Email: rubymush@yahoo.co.in

......Complainant

Versus

The British School (Recognised) through The Principal (Smt.Mona Shri Sethi) Sector 44B, Chandigarh. Pin-160044 Phone: 0172 4605000 & 4654000

Email:tbschd@thebritishschool.org

…. Opposite Party.

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
PRESENT:-
	Sh.Jaswant Singh, Authorized Representative of the complainant Sh.Vaneet Thakur, Counsel for OP (through VC).

       

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.         The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as amended up-to-date alleging therein that the complainant studied as regular student in Sanjay Public Sr. Sec. School (Recognized), 44B, Chandigarh in the academic years 1999 to 2002 and passed 7^th  8^th  and 9^th  respectively. After passing 9^th  class, the complainant further continuously studying in 10^th  class as regular student academic year 2002-2003 in the said school.  The complainant was repeatedly requesting the school authorities to give Admit card for appearing in 10th class exam, timely but not given by the OP till the date 04.03.2003 whereas exams to be started from the date of 05.03.2003 onward and lasting on 20.03.2003, due to the grudge that complainant was not taking the evening tuition classes from the School staff on payment of extra tuition fee etc. Due to non-receipt of Admit Card, he was not able to appear in the exam of 10^th class and lost one academic year.  It has further been averred that his father since 04.03.2003 several times requested the school/OP's principal to issue school leaving/ transfer certificate from the class of 10th and passing certificates of 7th, 8th, and 9th class or passing report cards but all in vain and without these documents, he was forced to discontinue further academic qualification/education. The said school was merged/renamed as British School (Recognized) in the year 2008. It has further been averred that in the School records wrong date of birth shown as 01.04.1986 whereas the correct date of birth is 12.10.1985 and for this purpose the complainant provided the requisite documents to the OP vide letter dated 21.1.2020 (Annexure C-8) for correction of date of birth in School records and for showing the correct date of birth in the asked for certificates as well as school leaving/transfer certificate but to no effect.  He also sent letter dated 10.03.2021 (Annexure C-12) in this regard.  He also served legal notice dated 29.03.2021 in this regard upon the OP but the same has also failed to yield any result.  It has been averred that the OP has failed to correct the date of birth in the school records and issue the passing certificates and school leaving /transfer certificate despite his repeated requests/visits. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the OPs to issue School certificate for passing of 7^th, 8^th, and 9^th class and School leaving/transfer certificate for 10th class showing the correct date of birth i.e. 12.10.1985 of the complainant after correction of their records and to pay the compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.
2.         In its written version, the OP took the preliminary objections inter alia that the complaint is barred by limitation as the same has been filed after a delay of 18 years which is not properly explained and that the education is not a commodity and student is not a consumer and as such this Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and that for change of date of birth in the School record requires corroboration of evidence for which a suit for declaration is maintainable but not the present complaint. It has been stated that the complainant wants School record/certificates pertaining to the year 2003 which is not available with the OP as the said School i.e. 'Sanjay Public School already stands closed in the year 2008 and the management of the present School i.e. The British School has no record/authority to issue any certificate pertaining to the 'Sanjay Public School' which is not even available with the present School. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         The complainant filed replication to the written reply of the OP and controverted their stand and reiterating his own.
4.         Parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
5.         We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties  and have gone through the documents on record including written submissions.
6.         Along with the complaint, the complainant has also filed the application for condonation of delay of 16 years 5 months and 27 days in filing the complaint stating therein that the delay in filing the complaint is not intentional or deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond the control of the complainant.
7.         The said application has been opposed by OP by stating that the complaint has been filed after a delay of 18 years which is not properly explained and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed being barred by time.
8.         The first question that arises for consideration is, as to whether, is there sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 16 years 5 months and 27 days in filing the complaint or not?   
9.         Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which deals with the limitation is relevant for deciding the application under consideration which is reproduced as under:-

“Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019:-

 (1)   The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2)    Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

        Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay”

10.         A perusal of the aforesaid Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 clearly provides that the District Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. However, a complaint may be entertained after the period specified if the complainant satisfies this Commission that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.  
11.         As per the complainant himself, the cause of action has accrued to file the complaint firstly on 04.03.2003 when the OP did not hand over the admit card for appearing in the 10^th class exam and the passing certificates of 7^th,  8^th, and 9^th class etc. after correcting the date of birth in their records and, therefore, the present complaint should have been filed by the complainant on or before 04.03.2005 before this Commission whereas the same has been filed on 01.09.2021 i.e. after the huge delay of 16 years 5 months and 27 days.
12.         We have gone through the contents of the application for condonation of delay as well as the documents on record and we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to convince this Commission that he had any sufficient cause for not filing the present complaint within the prescribed period of two years. The complainant has also failed to explain each and every day’s delay in filing the present complaint.  Hence, the present application seeking condonation of 16 years 5 months and 27 days in filing the present complaint deserves to be dismissed.
13.         Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of SBI v. M/s. B.S. Agricultural Industries, II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC)=II (2009) SLT 793=2009 (2) GJX 414 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:

“8.    It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer Forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.”

                        The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that the settled legal proposition of law of limitation under the Consumer Protection Act has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, though it may harshly affect a particular party. The ratio of the law settled in the aforesaid judgment is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

14.         Moreover, the students are not ‘Consumers’ and ‘Education’ is not a commodity and that Educational Institutions are not rendering ‘Service’ as has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment titled as P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC). Thus, the complainant is not a consumer qua the OP.
15.         Even on merits, the complainant has alleged that Sanjay Public Sr. Sec. School (Recognized), Sector 44B. Chandigarh was merged/renamed as British School (Recognized) in the year 2008 but the complainant has miserably failed to prove the same on record. Moreover, the OP clarified that Sanjay Public Sr. Sec.. School had already stand closed in the year 2008 and the management of the present school i.e. The British School has no record/authority to issue any certificate pertaining to Sanjay Public Sr. Sec. School which is not even available with the present school. Hence, it is observed that the complainant has wrongly impleaded The British School as necessary opposite party instead of Sanjay Public Sr. Sec.  School.

                Moreover, the present complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Commission as the present dispute is not a consumer dispute but a civil dispute which requires elaborate evidence and declaration to the effect of ‘change of date of birth’ of the complainant. This Consumer Commission has no power to grant relief to the effect of declaration to the effect of change of date of birth but Civil Court can grant so under suit for declaration to the effect of change of date of birth of the petitioner.

16.         For the reasons, recorded above, the application for condonation of delay of 16 years 5 months and 27 days (18 years as per the OP) in filing the complaint, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the complaint is also dismissed, being barred by time, with no order as to costs.   Though the complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost yet taking a lenient view, no cost is imposed upon the complainant.
17.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission 24.05.2024
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER