Haryana

StateCommission

A/585/2014

Shanti Public Senior Secondry School - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vinod Rawat - Opp.Party(s)

17 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      585 of 2014

Date of Institution:      07.07.2014

Date of Decision :      17.03.2016

 

Shanti Public Senior Secondary School, Palwal, through its Principal Rajender Kumar

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

Versus

1.      Vinod Rawat (minor) son of Shri Bir Singh Rawat, Resident of Village Farizanpur Khedla, Tehsil and District Palwal, through his father and natural guardian Shri Bir Singh.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

2.      The Secretary of Education Board of Haryana at Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

Respondent/Opposite Party No.2

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Vikas Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             None for respondent No.2.           

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Shanti Public Senior Secondary School, Palwal (for short ‘Shanti Public School’)-Opposite Party No.1, is in appeal against the order dated April 1^st, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.46 of 2012.

2.      In brief, complaint was filed with the allegations that the complainant was student of 10+2 in Shanti Public School-Opposite Party No.1. He had appeared in the examination of 1^st Semester of 10+2 held in September, 2011. He had to appear in the examination of 2^nd Semester to be held in March, 2012.  Roll Number was issued by the Board of School Education Haryana, Bhiwani-Opposite Party/respondent No.2 to the opposite party No.1. Since the Examination Centre was Jeevan Jyoti Public School, Palwal, therefore, the opposite party No.1 raised demand of money stating that they have to entertain the examination staff of Jeevan Jyoti Public School. It is stated that the complainant appeared in first and second paper held on March 15^th and 16^th, 2012 of English and Home Science respectively, without roll number. However, the Superintendent Examinations, asked that he would not permit the complainant to appear in the next paper without roll number. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 but they refused to issue the roll number.

3.      The opposite parties contested the complaint. Opposite Party No.1/appellant, in its reply stated that the complainant did not pay school fee after August, 2011 till end of March, 2012 nor attended the classes. Therefore, the complainant did not approach the school to collect roll number slip, as he knew that he had neither paid the tuition fee nor attended the classes. Denying the allegations, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.      Opposite Party No.2 in its reply stated that they had issued roll number slip to the opposite party No.1- Shanti Public School and thus denying any deficiency in service, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed complaint directing the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.2.00 lacs as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realisation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

6.      Except the affidavit of Bir Singh-father of complainant and notice, besides a copy of complaint purporting to have been sent to the Police on March 23^rd, 2012, no other evidence has been led by the complainant. It was the specific case of the appellant/opposite party No.1 that the complainant had neither deposited the fee nor attended the classes after August, 2011 and therefore, he was not allowed to appear in the examination. The appellant has placed on the file copy of register (Exhibit R-1) by which the name of the complainant was struck off and Exhibit R-2 showing non-payment of fee. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant also placed on the file the attendance register from August, 2011 onwards showing that the complainant had attended the classes till September, 2011 and thereafter he had not attended the classes. Since the complainant has not attended the classes after September, 2011 till February, 2012 and also had not paid the fee of the school, therefore he was not issued roll number.

7.      During the pendency of the appeal, the complainant was asked to produce the proof in the shape of Notes of Class and Home Work etcetera, in case he had attended the class but failed to produce the same.  

8.      It is not in dispute that examination forms for 10+2 examination for both semesters are filled up during 1^st semester itself. No examination form is filled up by the student for 2^nd semester of 10+2.

9.      As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, the complainant has failed to prove that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. Since, the complainant himself did not attend the classes and also did not pay the school fee, therefore, he was not allowed to appear in the examination. The District Forum has failed to appreciate the above stated facts and evidence available on the record. Thus, the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.

10.    Hence, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 17.03.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL