AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dinesh Singh, Member
We heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant, the Petitioner herein, and perused the material on record.
The Complainant's case is that inspite of paying all the requisite fees to the School (Ideal Children High School), the Respondents No. 1 and No. 2 herein, the School did not allow the Complainant's son to take the CBSE Examination for Class X.
The District Forum afforded opportunity to all the parties, appraised the evidence, and, vide its Order dated 28.02.2015, dismissed the Complaint.
An Appeal, being F.A. No. 42 of 2017, was filed by the Complainant before the State Commission.
The State Commission heard the Counsel for the Complainant, appraised the evidence, and, through its Order dated 19.02.2018, dismissed the Appeal.
The Complainant has filed the instant Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 challenging the said Order dated 19.02.2018 of the State Commission.
The operative portion of the District Forum's Order is as below:
"From bare perusal of Para - 15 of complaint petition as well as written statement of opposite parties it is crystal clear that in the same matter the complainant has lodged a F.I.R. on 01.03.2007 giving rise to Kadamkuan (Kankarbagh) P.S. case no. 194/07 dated 01.03.2007 U/s 406, 420, 120 B IPC. The result of the aforesaid investigation is not known to us but it is fact that in the same matter the complainant has lodged a F.I.R.
"It goes without saying that for the same matter the complainant has taken resort criminal law as well as consumer protection act.
"For the discussion made above we find no merit in this complaint case and as such this complaint stands dismissed."
In reference to the said operative portion of the District Forum's Order, we may first note that the factum that an F.I.R. has been registered with the Police and the case is under investigation does not preclude the Complainant's right to agitate 'deficiency in service' or 'unfair trade practice' under the Act 1986. The two, filing an F.I.R. re a criminal offence, and filing a Complaint alleging 'deficiency in service' or 'unfair trade practice', are in different domains, the one in the criminal domain, the other in the civil domain, and, as such, the two can proceed independently and concurrently.
The District Forum erred, to this extent, in its appraisal.
That being as it is, we note the appraisal made by the State Commission in paras 5 and 6 of its impugned Order, which is as below:
"5. It view of the stand taken by the op no. 2- Principal of the said school at material time stating at para 3,4,5&6 in its written statement before District Forum that the student in question was granted admission in class IX and later on due promotion to class X who stopped attending school in regular manner although monthly fee paid and for the final Board examination commenced in March 2006, the sent up test held in September 2005 the son of the complainant failed and thus the student was not allowed to appear in final Board Examination for year March 2006 but the complainant resorted threatening and applying undue pressure on op no. 2 to ensure his son be sent up for final Board examination to be held in 2007 which was contrary to Rules & Regulation prevailed in school and was denied by the op2 on part of school authorities resorted violence in school premises.
"6. In view of above facts and circumstances of present case , the stand taken by op Principal of said school with respect to the son of the complainant not allowed to appear for final Board Examination for March 2006 for being not qualified in the sent up test by son of complainant as required for appearing in final Board CBSE examination and the same has not been controvert by the appellant/complainant by adducing cogent materials/evidence, the allegations of the appellant/ complainant with respect to not performing duty or deficiency in service on part of the ops is not proved. - - -".
The gist of the case is recorded in para 6 of the State Commission's impugned Order: " - - - the stand taken by op Principal of said school with respect to the son of the complainant not allowed to appear for final Board Examination for March 2006 for being not qualified in the sent up test by son of complainant as required for appearing in final Board CBSE examination and the same has not been controvert by the appellant/complainant by adducing cogent materials/evidence, the allegations of the appellant/ complainant with respect to not performing duty or deficiency in service on part of the ops is not proved. - - -".
The facts, material to this matter, are that sometime in 2004 the Complainant's son was granted admission in Class IX by the School (Ideal Children High School) after he had failed twice in Class IX in another school (the Central School). He was thereafter promoted to Class X. He continued to pay the monthly fees, but was irregular in attending classes. In a "sent up examination" conducted by the School in September 2005, the Complainant's son failed to clear "most of the papers". As per its prevalent practice, the School did not allow him to take the final Board Examination for Class X held in March 2006.
The Complainant has failed to establish that his son was in any manner differently treated from similarly situate students or that he was in any manner singled out for discrimination by the School.
Here, in the present facts and context, we do not feel it appropriate or necessary to examine whether or not a school should conduct pre-Board internal qualifying examinations for allowing its students to take the subsequent Board Examination. Such an examination in the facts and context of the instant case would be misplaced.
We fail to understand the reason or requirement for making the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) a party to the case. Ex facie, this was nothing but trouble and travail for the CBSE.
The remedy provided to 'Consumers' under Section 3 of the Act 1986, which is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, to seek redressal for 'deficiency in service' or 'unfair trade practice', is not meant to be a tool to harass a school administration by a guardian of a student who is irregular in attending classes and does not qualify a pre-Board internal examination conducted by the school under a non-discriminatory policy uniformly applicable to all similarly situate students.
With the above brief examination, the Complaint is dismissed as being patently ill-conceived and totally bereft of merit.
A copy of this Order be sent to the School (Respondents No. 1 and No. 2 herein) by the Registry within ten days of its pronouncement.