IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM

            DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF   DECEMBER 2018

Present: -    Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

       Sri. M.Praveen Kumar,Bsc, LLB ,Member

      Smt.S.Sandhya   Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

       CC.No.185/2013

Mohammed Shah                                               :                  Complainant

S/o Late Abdul Hameed

Poovenam Veedu

Beach North

Pallithottam P.O

Kollam

Presently having address at P.B.No.52147

Dubai .U.A.E

[By Adv.Boris Paul, Kollam]

V/S

          1        The Chairman                        :                  Opposite parties

                   National Public School

                   Thazhuthala

                   Mukhathala P.O

                   Kollam – 691577

          2.       The Principal

                   National Public School

Thazhuthala

                   Mukhathala P.O

                   Kollam – 691 577

          3.       The Vice –Principal

                   National Public School

                   Thazhuthala

                   Mukhathala P.O

                   Kollam – 691 577

          4.       National Public School (Additional Opposite party)

                   Thazhuthala

                   Mukhathala P.O

                   Kollam – 691 577

                   (Represented by the principal)

                    (Impleaded as per order on IA.128/15 dated 6/11/15)

                    [By Adv.A.Niaz, Kollam]

         (2)

ORDER

SRI. M. PRAVEEN KUMAR, MEMBER

This case is based on a complaint filed by Mohamed Shah  under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against 4 opposite parties seeking an amount of Rs. 20/- lakh  as compensation  and also seeks costs of the proceedings.

The averment in the complaint is short are as follows. The complainant Son Jameel Mohammed Shah was a student of National Public School , Thazhuthala where the 2^nd opposite party is the manager and 3^rd opposite party is the principal and 1^st opposite party is the chairman of the said school. The complainant and his family have been residing in Dubai previously. Complainant had approached the opposite parties several times to get the mistakes in his son’s XII class certificate  issued by the CBSE. The mistakes occurred in his name, the complainant’s name as well as in the name of his other in the certificate and the mistakes occurred solely due to the carelessness of the opposite parties and the staff at the school. The name of complainant’s   son   is correctly   mentioned   in his class   X, class  XI certificates and even on the registers maintained in the school as  JEMEEL MOHAMED SHAH  and his father’s name was correctly mentioned therein as  MOHAMMED SHAH  and mother’s name was correctly mentioned therein as MUMTAJ .While registering  for the class XII Board Examination the name of the complainants son was wrongly mentioned as  JAMEEL .M.SHAH  , father’s name 

(2)

was A.M.SHA and mother’s name was MUMTAJ SHAH. These errors occurred in the class XII certificate issued by CBSE. The complainant had to travel from Dubai to India  to facilitate the process of correction of certificate.  The complainant had to leave behind his professional assignment s at Dubai including the coverage of World Championship and programme of Global Happiness Foundation.  This caused  much loss of money, goodwill as well as mental agony to the complainant .

In spite of repeated letters and phone calls to the opposite parties, they were not at all diligent to rectify the mistakes in the certificate within a reasonable time. As per the CBSE norms, if an original certificate is sent for correction the processing time takes upto 21 days and the Board returns the certificate at the earliest manner.  In the present case the delay for correcting the certificate was  362 days.  Even the registered letters issued by the complainant was not responded appropriately. As the opposite parties were not willing to take responsibility , the complainant had to travel  to Chennai with his son for handing over  the original certificate to the CBSE for correction.  It is a matter of concern that the opposite parties are unaware of the procedures of the CBSE Board letter dated 05/09/2012.  The opposite parties bluntly apologized which reveals the shabby manner in which things   are   done   by   the opposite  parties. The complainant’s son could not get admission at T.K.M. College of Engineering.  Thereafter the complainant had to secure   an   admission   through   NRI   quota had to pay an additional amount of

(3)

Rs.8,00,000/- . The complainant has suffered huge monetary loss as well as immense mental agony. The loss sustained to the complainant is assessed as Rs.20 Lakhs which includes three flight charges from Dubai and back,  travel expenses to  Chennai and back, the additional fee obtained to secure an NRI quota, compensation for loss of earning, other expenses and compensation for mental agony. Hence the complainant approached the Forum  seeking the relief.

Opposite parties No.1 to 3  resisted the complaint by filing a  joint written version  raising the following contentions. The complainant is not an affected party and he has no locus standi to file the complaint.  The so called affected party is the son of the complainant and he is not represented in the complaint. The complainant has no authority to file this complaint without proper representation.  Moreover  the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties school does not have any role in the matter of holding the examination or issuing certificate other than to participate as the duly controlled agent of C.B.S.E. The application for examination is filled by the student himself and if any mistake arise the student is solely responsible for that and the opposite parties has no role in that.  In the application for admission the complainant name was written as MOHAMMED SHAH A and his wife’s name is written as MUMTAJ MOHAMMED SHAH in an illegible manner.  In the passport of the complainant the spelling of his name is MUHAMMED SHAH. In the complaint his spelling is

(4)

different from that. Moreover some documents produced before the opposite parties his name is seen as A.M.SHAH and ABDUL SHAH.  There mistaken arise only due to the carelessness of his son.  The only duty of the opposite parties is to forward the application filled by the student to CBSE.

In the migration certificate dated 29/04/2011, CBSE certificate dated 02/08/2011 etc  the complainant’s son name was mentioned as JAMEEL.M.SHAH but the complainants son did not take any steps to cure the defect made by him, moreover the last exam was written as a private candidate and in that application also the candidate mistakenly mentioned his name.  The certificate of compartmental exam came dated 28/05/2012 and after a long delay the complainant’s so approached the opposite parties and aid in rectifying the defect in the certificate issued by CBSE.  As per the request of the student a letter was send to the CBSE and the CBSE in its reply directed student to produce all the original certificate issued by the Board and migration certificate along with required fee. The complainant has a habit of continuously sending letters to the opposite parties without doing anything and finally he had himself handed over the original certificates to CBSE for correction. Opposite parties never send a letter dated 05/09/2012 apologizing anything and the letter produced by the complainant is a fabricated one and seems to be send by the complainant’s son from Ernakulam Post Office.  The certificate is corrected to the CBSE.

(5)

In the XII final exam the complainant’s son got very low mark and so he is not qualified to write the entrance exams. So he is not constrained to write the compartmental exam and in this exam also he was not competent to get admission in Engineering or Medical College.  Moreover the complainant has no case that his son has written the entrance exam and due to the mistake in certificate he did not get admission to engineering college in merit. Complainant never state or produce  rank of his son engineering entrance exam.  If the T.K.M college of Engineering has collected an additional amount of Rs.8,00,000/- for an admission in engineering course the complainant must approach appropriate authorities against the act of TKM college.

If any loss sustained to the complainant it is only due to negligence and carelessness of his son  Moreover  the complainant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act. Hence the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with cost.

Additional 4^th opposite party resisted the complaint by filing a separate  written version by raising the following contention.  According to 4^th opposite party , the opposite party school does not have any role in the matter of holding the examination or issuing certificate other than to  participate as the duly controlled agent of CBSE . The application for  examination is filled by the student himself and if any mistake arise the student is solely responsible for that and the opposite parties    has  no   role in that.  In the application for admission the complainant’s  

(6)

name was written as “ MOHAMMED SHAH” and his  wife’s name is written as MUMTAJ MOHAMMED SHAH in an illegible manner.  In the passport of the complainant the spelling of his name is Muhammed Shah .In the complaint his spelling is different  from that . Moreover  some documents produced before the opposite parties his name is seen as A.M.Shah and Abdul Shah.  The mistaken entries in the certificate arise only due to the carelessness of the complainant and his son.   The only duty of the opposite parties is to forward the application filled by the CBSE student.  In the migration certificate dated 29/04/2011, CBSE certificate dated 02/08/2011 etc the complainants son name is mentioned as Jameel.M.Shah but the complainants son did not take any step to cure the defect made by him, moreover the last exam was written as a private candidate and in that application also      the   candidate     mistakenly   mentioned   his    name.  The certificate of compartmental exam came on  28/05/2012 and after a long delay the complainants son approached the opposite parties seeking help in rectifying the defect in the certificate  issued by CBSE. As per the request of the student a letter was sent to the CBSE and the CBSE in its reply directed student to produce all the original certificates issued by the board and migration certificate along with required fee.  As stated in the complaint the opposite parties never send a letter on 05/09/2012   apologizing anything and the letter produced by the complainant is a

      (7)

fabricated one and seems to be sent by the complainant’s son from Ernakulam post office. The certificate is to be corrected by the CBSE and it is the duty of the complainant to get it corrected by complying necessary formalities and the opposite party has no role in it. In the XII final exam the complainants son got very low mark and so he is not qualified to write the entrance exams. So he is  constrained to write  the compartmental exam and in this exam also he was not competent to get admission in engineering or medical college.  Complainant never stated the rank of his son in the engineering entrance exam. He is not qualified to get admission in merit.  The only way to secure admission  in through  NRI quota. It is very clear that the complainant approached the Hon’ble Forum without clear hands  and if the TKM college of engineering has collected an additional amount of Rs.8,00,000/- for admission in engineering course the complainant must approach appropriate authorities against the act of TKM  college and according to  the   additional   4^th opposite   party   the complainant is not a consumer and the complainant has  preferred this complaint on frivolous and vexatious grounds which is liable to be dismissed with costs.

          In view of the pleadings the points for consideration  are  :-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint  is allowable?
3. Reliefs and costs?

(8)

Evidence on the side of the complainant consist of the oral evidence on PW1  and Exts P1 to P8 documents. Evidence on the side of the opposite parties consists of   the oral evidence of DW1 and  Ext.D1 to D4.

Both sides  have filled notes of argument. Heard both sides.

Points No.1 and 2:- For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these two points are considered together. Admitted case of the parties is that complainants son was a student of the 1^st opposite party school.  He registered  and appeared for the class XII  CBSE  board exam and CBSE issued a  class XII certificate. The specific allegation of the complainant is that his son’s name is mistakenly entered in his class XII certificate issued by the CBSE, though his name is correctly mentioned in his class  X, XI, certificates  that in the registers maintained  in the school the name of the son of the complainant is entered as JAMEEL MOHAMED SHAH    and    his father’s  name is correctly mentioned therein as MOHMMED SHAH  and mothers  name is correctly mentioned there in as  MUMTAJ. But while registering from the class XII board exam wrongly mentioned the name of his son as JAMEEL M SHAH , fathers name  A.M.SHAH  and mothers name as MUMTAJ  SHAH . According to the complainant these certificate having errors issued by the CBSE is of grave  in nature and the same was  caused due to the opposite parties carelessness gross negligence and  hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

(9)

PW1 is the complainant himself. He would depose that Ext.D1 application is one filed by him wherein the name of his son is shown as JEMEEL MOHAMED SHAH and in father’s name column it is written as MOHAMMED SHAH. The house name is shown as Poovnnam Veedu. But in the present complaint the house name is stated as Poovenam only. It is also brought out in evidence that the application for the examination was filed by the student himself and also signed by the complainant and the name of the complainant is written as MOHAMMED SHAH and his wife’s name is written as MOMTAJ MUHAMMED SHAH and in Ext.P1 passport of the complainant The spelling of name of the complainant is  written MUHAMMED SHAH . It is also brought out in evidence that in some other documents produced by the complainant before the opposite parties complainant’s name is seen written as A.M.SHAH and Abdul Sha. By relying on the   above   materials  the learned counsel for  the opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 has argued that the candidate who appeared for CBSE Board examination and his father who is the complainant herein are very very careless in writing their name and address and they used to write their name differently in different occasions and even the spelling of their names are written differently in the application form and other documents including passport. Hence it is clear that  the mistakes arise only due to the carelessness of the complainant and his son and the opposite party who forwarded the application filled by the student to the CBSE board is not all responsible . In view of the materials available on record we find force in the above argument.

(10)

It is pertinent to point out that PW1 would admit during cross examination  that the application for CBSE exam was filled by his son and his son appeared for improvement exam as a private candidate and that the only duty of the opposite party school is to forward  the application to CBSE  Board. In the circumstance if at all any mistake occurred in writing the name in the application form, the opposite parties cannot  be held responsible at all.

          The learned counsel for the opposite parties has vehemently argued before the Forum that the migration certificate dated 29/4/2011, CBSC certificate dated 2/08/2011 etc the name of the complainants son is seen mentioned as  Jameel.M.Shah  but the complainant’s son did not take any steps to cure the above  defects .  The certificate of compartmental exam came on  28/5/12 and after a long delay the complainant’s son approached the opposite parties seeking assistance in rectifying the defect in the certificate issued by CBSE.  The CBSC in its reply directed the student to produce all the original certificates issued by the board and migration certificate along with required fee. But student was not ready to comply with the above direction to cure the defects. Hence the lapse is on the side of the complainant  and his son and not on the side of the opposite parties .We find force in the above contention also.

It is also brought out in evidence that the signature of the principal found in Ext.P6 and P7 are different and seal is also different and that the complainants son got only 34 marks for mathematics and he had written improvement examination .

(11)

It is also brought out in evidence that complainants son did not write the entrance examination for engineering admission and as he did not got minimum mark he cannot write entrance examination . The complainant has also not adduced any evidence regarding his rank in the entrance examination if any he passed.  No evidence has been adduced by the complainant to prove that the complainants son has obtained admission and payment made at TKM college of engineering, Kollam.

On evaluating the entire materials available on record  we hold that the complainant has not succeed in establishing any deficiency in service, unfair trade practice or negligence on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint is only to be dismissed. The points answered accordingly.

Points No.3

          In the result, the complaint stands dismissed .

          No costs.

Dictated to the  Confidential Assistant Smt.Vijimole.G transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Forum on this the 10^th day of December 2018.         

E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-

M.PRAVEENKUMAR:Sd/-

S.SANDHYA   RANI: Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

                Senior Superintendent

(12)

INDEX

Witness examined for complainant

PW.1:-Mohammed Shah

Witness examined for opposite party

DW.1:-Shibu.P

Documents marked for the complainant

Ext.P1:-  Copy of passport of complainant

Ext.P.2 :- Copy of letter dated 13/02/13

Ext.P.3:- Copy of letter dated 15/3/13

Ext.P4:- Copy of letter dated 19/6/12

Ext.P.5 :- Copy of letter dated 25/2/13

Ext.P.6:- Letter from National public school dated 04/08/2012

Ext.P.7:- Letter from National public school dated 05/09/12

Ext.P.8:- Letter from Central Board of secondary education dated 20/10/15

Documents marked for the opposite party

Ext.D1:- National public school admission application form

Ext.D2:- Authorization letter

Ext.D3:- Copy of migration certificate

Ext.D4:- Copy of mark list

                                                                             E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

                                                                             M.Praveen Kumar:-Sd/-

                                                                 S.Sandhya   Rani.Sd/-

                                                                             Forwarded/by Order

                                                                           Senior Superintendent