DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 325 of 12.11.2007 Decided on : 18.2.2008 <br /> <br /> <br /> Tej Singh Brar S/o Sh. Balwinder Singh, R/o Goniana Mandi, Tehsil & District Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.The Principal, Kamala Montessori School, Bajekan Chowk, Hissar Road, Sirsa (Haryana).<br /> 2.The Principal, Saint Fateh Singh Convent School, Maur Mandi, District Bathinda.<br /> 3.The Regional Officer, Regional Office of Central Board of Secondary Education, Sector 5, Panchkula (Haryana)<br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Jasvir Singh, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite party No.2<br /> Sh. Amrit Pal Singh, counsel for opposite party No.3 <br /> Opposite party No. 1 exparte<br /> <br /> O R D E R. <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Complainant is a qualified doctor having B.E.M.S degree. He is practising at Goniana Mandi. His daughter Kanwaljeet Brar was born on 2.1.1990. He got her admitted in well known school i.e. Kamala Montessori School, Bajekan Chowk, Hissar Road, Sirsa (Haryana) which is affiliated with Central Board of Secondary Education (Here-in-after referred to as CBSE). Columns of the admission form were filled in with complete bio-data. In column No. 4, her correct date of birth registered with the Registrar, Deaths & Births, Municipal Council, Goniana Mandi is 2.1.90. Accordingly, entries were made in the record of opposite party No. 1 i.e. in the register at Sr. No. 433 dated 4.4.1994. Although school i.e. opposite party No. 1 was maintaining correct record regarding her date of birth as 2.1.90, yet it wrongly sent admission form to opposite party No. 3 and opposite party No. 3 has wrongly issued registration card for 9th class 2003-04 bearing registration No. C/05/03806/142569 by incorporating the date of birth as 1.1.90 instead of 2.1.90. His daughter passed the 9th standard examination from Kamala Montessori School. Later-on she got admission in Saint Fateh Singh Convent School, Maur Mandi. Both Kamala Montessori School and Saint Fateh Singh Convent School are affiliated with CBSE. Opposite party No. 2 has also maintained record giving correct date of birth of his daughter as 2.1.90, yet opposite party No. 3 has issued certificate of Secondary School Examination 2005 under Roll No. 2159177 by incorporating her date of birth as 1.1.90 instead of 2.1.90. After she passed the 10th standard examination, opposite party No. 2 has issued her Character Certificate bearing No. 107 dated 31.8.2005 and Transfer/School Leaving Certificate bearing No. 013 mentioning her correct date of birth. She has passed her +2 examination by obtaining good marks in the academic year 2006-07 in medical. As she is brilliant student, she was intending to go abroad for higher medical studies. For that Passport was applied for by her. Authorities have issued Passport No. FO 744417 valid from 5.10.2004 to 4.10.2014 by incorporating her date of birth as 2.1.90. She has applied for admission in Sunyat Sen College of Medical Sciences, Gaungzogu, China. Due to the mistake committed by the opposite parties in recording her date of birth as 1.1.90, her brilliant academic career is at stake as she is undergoing Visa problem for admission. Opposite parties were approached many a times for correcting the date of birth, but they paid no heed. Legal notice was got served by him through his counsel, but to no effect. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In this scenario, complainant who is the father of Kanwaljeet Brar who is minor has preferred this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to issue registration certificate and certificates of 9th and 10th classes/standards by incorporating date of birth of his daughter as 2.1.90 in place of 1.1.90; pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony, harassment and loss of academic session of her daughter and Rs. 10,000/- as costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite party No. 1. Letter dated 18.12.2007 was issued by her with the request that C.B.S.E, Regional Office be directed for better career of the student (Kanwaljeet Brar) in near future. The date fixed in the complaint was 2.1.2008. Opposite party No. 1 did not put in appearance despite the fact that she was fully aware about the pendency of this complaint. Even otherwise, registered A.D. notice was issued to opposite party No. 1 on 30.11.2007. Neither registered cover nor A.D was received within 30 days. No-one was present on 2.1.2008 on behalf of opposite party No.1. Hence, she has been proceeded against exparte.<br /> 3. Opposite party No. 2 filed written statement taking legal objections that complainant has no cause of action to file this complaint against him; he has not approached this Forum with clean hands; complaint is false and frivolous and complainant is not consumer. He admits that daughter of the complainant had got admission in Saint Fateh Singh Convent School, Maur Mandi in 10th class. Registration of the student is got made with CBSE when he/she is in 9th class. Complainant's daughter has passed her 9th class from the school of opposite party No.1 and was registered with CBSE vide registration No. C/05/03806/142569. Data/date of birth is sent to the CBSE at the time of registration and that data is maintained by the CBSE for all future examinations. Thereafter, return is sent by the respective school as per registration duly signed by the candidate/student. Hence, there is no fault on his part if opposite party No. 3 has issued the certificate of Secondary School Examination of complainant's daughter showing her date of birth as 1.1.90. 9th class examination has not been passed by the daughter of the complainant from Saint Fateh Singh Convent School. He has fully co-operated with the complainant for correction of the date of birth of his daughter. On the request of the complainant, requisite formalities were completed as per requirement of CBSE for correction. Vice Principal and Chairman of the school had also paid visit to the office of CBSE alongwith school record for correction of the date of birth for expediting the matter. There was no deficiency in service on his part. He denies the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. Opposite party no. 3 filed separate reply of the complaint taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable against it; Universities/Boards conducting the examination, evaluating the answer sheets, announcing the results and issuing the certificates on the basis of the examinations do not fall within the ambit of the consumers; this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint; as per Rule No. 4 of the Examination Bye-laws of the Central Board of Secondary Education, only courts at New Delhi are competent to adjudicate the disputes; there is no provision for change of date of birth. Relevant Bye-law of the Board is 69.2 for change/correction in the date of birth; complainant has got no locus-standi to file the complaint; certificate belongs to Kanwaljeet Brar and complaint has not been filed by her; there is no mistake in recording the date of birth as 1.1.90 on his part; Board takes the particulars from the list of candidates. In that list, the particulars of Kanwaljeet Brar were incorporated by opposite party No. 1 and were certified to be correct. They were also certified to be correct by Kanwaljeet Brar and she had appended her signatures to that effect; certificate of 10th class was issued in June, 2005 showing the correct date of birth as 1.1.90. Complaint has been filed in November, 2007 and as such, it is bared by time. On merits, he admits that Kamala Montessori School, Sirsa is affiliated with C.B.S.E. According to him, the date of birth mentioned in the record of Registrar, Births and Deaths is wrong. Correct date of birth as per record is 1.1.90. He denies remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 5. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Tej Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.1), photocopy of birth certificate of her daughter Kanwaljit Kaur (Ex.C.2), photocopy of registration form (Ex.C.3), photocopy of admission and withdrawal register (Ex.C.4), photocopy of registration card (Ex.C.5), photocopy of detail of marks card (Ex.C.6), photocopy of legal notice dated 14.8.2007 (Ex.C.7), photocopies of postal receipts (Ex.C.8), photocopy of school leaving certificate (Ex.C.9), photocopy of character certificate (Ex.C.10), photocopy of letter dated 20.4.2006 (Ex.C.11), photocopy of Passport (Ex.C.12), photocopy of format for correction in date of birth (Ex.C.13), photocopy of his affidavit (Ex.C.14), photocopy of admission & withdrawal register (Ex.C.15).<br /> 6. On behalf of the opposite parties No. 2 & 3, reliance has placed on affidavits of S/Sh. Rajesh Kataria, Junior Assistant of opposite party No.3, D.R. Yadav, Regional Officer of opposite party No.3 and G.D Verma, Principal of opposite party No.2 which are Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 respectively.<br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and opposite parties No. 2 & 3. Apart from this, we have perused the record. <br /> 8. Some facts do not remain in dispute in this case. They are that Kanwaljeet Brar daughter of the complainant was studying in Kamala Montessori School, Sirsa upto 9th class. In 10th class, she got admission in Saint Fateh Singh Convent School, Maur Mandi, District Bathinda. Kamala Montessori School, Bajekan Chowk, Sirsa and Saint Fateh Singh Convent School, Maur Mandi are affiliated with CBSE. This Central Board of Secondary Education issued detail of marks card No. 092409 concerning Kanwaljeet Brar on 24.5.2005 and copy of the same is Ex.C.6. According to it, she has passed the Secondary School Examination 2005. First argument pressed into service by Mr. Amrit Pal Singh learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 is that complainant is not consumer qua opposite party No. 3 as Universities/Boards conducting examination, evaluating answer sheets, announcing results and issuing certificates do not fall within the ambit of consumer. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 could not bring any authority to our notice according to which matter regarding correction in the date of birth inadvertently/wrongly recorded cannot be adjudicated by the Consumer Fora. Performance of statutory duties by a University or College in laying down criteria/rules/regulations for conducting examinations, eligibility criteria for permitting the students to appear in the examination or declaration of result of a student who appeared in the examination and such other activities cannot be considered to be hiring of service for fees. They are statutory functions depending upon the contract between the parties. To the contrary, opposite party No. 3 has himself pleaded in para No. 5 of the preliminary objections that as per bye-law No. 69.2, there is provision of change/correction in the date of birth. Accordingly, application was also sent by Saint Fateh Singh Convent School for correction of the date of birth of the daughter of the complainant as is clear from Ex.C.13. Letter was also addressed by this school to Regional Office of the CBSE on 20.4.2006 and copy of the same is Ex.C.11. In these circumstances, opposite party No 3 cannot wriggle out of the situation by saying that Kanwaljeet Brar is not consumer especially when Kamala Montessori School, Sirsa is affiliated with it and it was charging the fee from her and this school had sent her date of birth to the Board.<br /> 9. Plea of opposite party no. 3 that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and that only courts at Delhi are competent, is not tenable. Rule No. 4 of the examinations bye-law is regarding the legal jurisdiction for the suits and not about the complaints under the Act. Remedy of Consumer Fora as per section 3 of the Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Saint Fateh Singh Convent School, Maur Mandi, District Bathinda is affiliated with CBSE. Kanwaljeet Brar had got admission in this school in 10th class. She has passed Secondary School Examination 2005 from this school. Accordingly, matter regarding the date of birth came to her knowledge after she appeared in the examination in Saint Fateh Singh Convent School, Maur Mandi, District Bathinda. In these circumstances, when Saint Fateh Singh Convent School is affiliated with CBSE, complainant appeared in Secondary School Examination 2005 through this school and she has got the certificate, this Forum has got the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. Moreover matter regarding date of birth is a continuing one.<br /> 10. Mr. Jasvir Singh learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant had submitted Admission/Registration form to Kamala Montessori School by mentioning her date of birth as 2.1.90 as is evident from Ex.C.3. Her date of birth has been recorded as 2.1.90 by the Local Registrar, Births & Deaths and copy of the birth certificate is Ex.C.2. In the Admission & Withdraw Register of the school at Sirsa, her date of birth has been correctly recorded as 2.1.90 as is obvious from Ex.C.4. Despite this, school authorities had sent wrong information about date of birth of the daughter of the complainant to the Board on account of which her date of birth has been incorporated as 1.1.90 in the registration card, copy of which is Ex.C.5. Complainant has completed her 9th standard from that school. Thereafter, she had got admission in Saint Fateh Singh School, Maur Mandi which maintained proper record regarding her date of birth as 2.1.90 as is evident from Ex.C.9, Ex.C.10 and Ex.C.15. He further argued that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. <br /> 11. Learned counsel for the opposite parties countered the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that this complaint has not been filed before this Forum within the period of limitation and that even otherwise, it is not maintainable in the present form.<br /> 12. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, we feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the opposite parties on these aspects of the matter. Admittedly, the dispute is with regard to the date of birth recorded in the registration card and Secondary School Examination Certificate issued by the Board to Kanwaljeet Brar daughter of the complainant. Complaint has not been filed by her. It has been instituted by Sh. Tej Singh, her father. He has no locus-standi to file it in his individual capacity. Aggrieved person is his daughter. If she is minor as has been recorded by him in para no. 11 of the complaint, even then it should have been filed by her through her next friend/guardian, may be through the complainant. Accordingly, this complaint preferred by the complainant in his personal capacity is not maintainable.<br /> 13. Complaint is also liable to be dismissed on the point of limitation. Opposite party no. 3 has issued certificate of Secondary School Examination 2005 in which the date of birth of Kanwaljeet Brar has been incorporated as 1.1.90 instead of 2.1.90. Copy of the certificate is Ex.C.6. This certificate/detail of marks card is dated 24.5.2005. It means that complainant as well as his father came to know about the date of birth incorporated in the detail marks card as 1.1.90 on some day in May, 2005. This complaint was instituted on 12.11.2007. Application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint has not been filed. Cause of action for filing the complaint accrued in May, 2005. District Forum can admit a complaint within two years from the date on which the cause of action arises. Hence this complaint filed on 12.11.2007 is hopelessly barred by time.<br /> 14. In the result, complaint deserves dismissal on the points of maintainability and limitation. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> 18.02.2008 President<br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />