CC Filed on 07.12.2007<br /> Disposed on 22.04.2008<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated 22.04.2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No.291/2007<br /> <br /> V.Ranganath,<br /> S/o A. Venkatachalapathy,<br /> R/o Panasachowdanahalli Village,<br /> Kasaba Hobli,<br /> Chintamani Taluk.<br /> (Since minor by his natural guardian<br /> and father Venkatachalapathy.A.) Complainant <br /> (By Advocate Sri. A.Lakshminarayana & Others)<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. The President,<br /> Maruthi Educational Trust ®,<br /> Sumashree English Medium School,<br /> Kurtahalli,<br /> Chintamani Taluk.<br /> <br /> 2. The Secretary,<br /> Maruthi Education Trust ®,<br /> Sumashree English Medium Scholl,<br /> Kurtahalli,<br /> Chintamani Taluk.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.291/2007<br /> 3. The Head Master,<br /> Maruthi Educational Trust ®,<br /> Sumashree English Medium School,<br /> Kurtahalli,<br /> Chintamani Taluk. Opposite Parties<br /> (By Advocate Sri. R.K.Venkataramanappa & Others) <br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant with interest till the date of realization with costs etc.,<br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of the case may be stated as fallows: The opposite parties are running Sumashree English Medium School at Kurtahalli in Chintamani Taluk. The complainant joined for High School Studies in the year 2004-05. He was promoted in 8th standard and 9th standard during successive years and was studying in SSLC during 2006-07. <br /> <br /> It is alleged by complainant that the opposite parties have issued admission ticket to appear for SSLC examination issued by the Government High School, Buramakanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Chintamani Taluk and examination center allotted was Govt. Higher Primary School, Chikkaballapur. Further it is alleged that because the complainant was not allowed to appear through Kurtahalli High School he had to suffer a lot and thereby he failed in two subjects and secured low marks in other subjects in SSLC and thereby he became a depressed student and he is not like a normal student in his studies and activities. Complainant has also alleged that his date of birth was wrongly shown by opposite parties <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.291/2007<br /> as 26.01.1988 instead of 05.11.1991 in the records sent to SSLC Examination Board. Therefore he claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.<br /> <br /> The opposite parties appeared and contested the case. They admitted that the complainant was a student of their High School. They contended that the complainant was highly irregular in attending classes and his performance in studies was poor therefore he was not allowed to appear for SSLC examination through their High School. Further they contended that in response to the intimation regarding poor performance of complainant, on 20.03.2006 the father of complainant gave an under-taking that in case the complainant did not improve within 3 months the school authorities were at liberty to take any action against the complainant. Further that as there was no improvement in the conduct of complainant they issued one more intimation dated 08.08.2006 to the father of complainant intimating that the complainant did not improve to any extent and to appear before the school authorities to meet them to discuss regarding complainant. It is alleged that the father of complainant did not meet the school authorities inspite of that intimation. Therefore they contended that the complainant was not allowed to appear for SSLC examination through their school. Subsequently the father of complainant was again intimated regarding the poor attendance and performance of the complainant and then the father of complainant told that he would arrange for his son to appear for SSLC examination as an external student in any school of Chikkaballapur. They contended that they were not responsible for issue of admission ticket or marks card as an external student and they had not sent wrong date of birth of complainant to SSLC Examination Board. Therefore they prayed for dismissal of complaint. <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.291/2007<br /> 3. The parties filed affidavits and relevant documents. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 1. Whether there is deficiency in service by opposite parties?<br /> 2. If so, what order?<br /> <br /> 4. After considering the records and the evidence our findings are as fallows:<br /> <br /> Point No.1: The opposite parties produced the letter dated 23.06.2006 written by the father of complainant and another letter dated 08.08.2006 written to the father of complainant by the opposite parties and also the extract of attendance register relating to 10th standard and also the progress report relating to complainant. The complainant was absent through out in May-2006 and attended only 9 days out of 26 days in June-2006 and he attended 10 days out of 26 days in July-2006 and 5 days out of 25 days in August-2006. His progress report was also not satisfactory till August-2006. These facts, it appears made the opposite parties not to allow the complainant to appear for SSLC examination through their school. The opposite parties sent on 24.08.2006 the list of students eligible for appearance of SSLC examination to be held in March-2007 to the SSLC Examination Board. The complainant and one Narasimhmurthy another 10th standard student who was also irregular to school were not permitted to appear for SSLC examination of March-2007. <br /> <br /> There is no convincing material to infer that opposite parties arranged for complainant to appear as external student from a different high school in Chikkaballapur. Such allegation of complainant is not proved satisfactorily. Therefore we cannot say that opposite parties are <br /> <br /> CC No.291/2007<br /> responsible for mentioning wrong date of birth of complainant in SSLC marks card obtained by him as an external candidate. It is also told that a student cannot appear as external student for SSLC examination unless he completes 18 years of age. Therefore it is quite possible for the complainant himself to give a wrong date of birth to enable him to appear for SSLC examination as an external student. For the above reasons we hold point No.1 in negative. <br /> <br /> Point No.2: As point No.1 is held in negative, point No.2 does not arise for consideration. Hence we pass the following:<br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 22nd day of April 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br />