AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
COMPLAINANT has come up in appeal against the order of District Forum-II dated 11.1.93 dismissing his complaint.
FACTS in brief of the case are that complainant withdrew his daughter Menu, a student of the respondent school before the end of the academic session ending on 31.3.1992 and on 26.3.1992 applied for the Transfer Certificate (TC) and the release of the security deposit so that he could get his daughter admitted in another school. Respondent-school asked him to deposit fees for the month of April before TC could be issued. It is alleged that complainant was harassed and TC was not issued. He then approached Dy. Director of Education (hereinafter referred to DDE) Delhi who directed respondent to issue the TC and complainant forwarded a photocopy of the order to respondent who still did not issue the certificate on the pretext of awaiting the orders in original of DDE. A registered notice was sent to respondent by complainant on 4.4.1992. Still no action was taken by the farmer. The latter again approached DDE who again directed respondent school to issue the said certificate. The order in original of DDE dated 24.1992 and 13.4.1992 were given to the school authorities only on 15.4.1992. On receipt of these orders respondent asked complainant to collect the certificate but when he went to collect the same on 18.4.1992 he was again asked to pay fees for April. Aggrievedi by this fact he filed the complaint before the District Forum and it has been alleged that the TC was issued during the pendency of the complaint.
Opposite party admitted having asked for the fees for the month of April but issued the TC and the security amount on receipt of Original orders of DDE which were filed on 15.4.1992. Complainant collected the TC and the security amount on 1.5.1992.
RESPONDENT on her part has alleged that complainant had misbehaved when he had come to the school and was responsible for sending false complaints against the school, Principal and the Chairman to various authorities creating problems for the school besides maligning its good name. Allegations in the complaints had also been levelled against the character of the Chairman of the school as also its Principal. Both parties claims were supported affidavits. The District Forum dismissed the case on the gound that the relief sought by the complainant had become infructuous with the issuance of the TC and the release of the security amount. They however did not award any damages as they were of the view that complainant had tried to defame the Chairman and the Principal and tarnished the image of the school by making false allegations against them.
COMPLAINANT has come up in appeal for the award of damages, costs and for the modification of the order of the District Forum, holding him responsible for the complaints made to the higher authorities, defaming the Chairman the Principal and tarnishing the image of the school. The appellant''s Counsel has argued that the complaints alleged to have been made by his client are true and can be proved and that the District Forum without calling for any evidence have drawn their conclusions based on respondents version. It has been again reiterated that the complaints made to the authorities are correct and he alone cannot be held responsible for them as besides there were many other parents who were signatories to the complaints and there were news items also in the newspapers. It has further been argued by appellant''s Counsel that about 200/250 parents had withdrawn their wards due to poor academic atmosphere, dictatorial attitude of the school authorities, gross irregularities, misuse of funds, immoral activities perpetrated by the Chairman and the flouting of rules in the appointment of the Principal and staff. According to him an unqualified and in-experienced 24 years old receptionist/clerk had been appointed Principal. The appeal has been contested by the respondent who has admitted having demanded the fees for the month of April but issued the Transfer Certificate on receipt of the orders in original of the DDE which was collected by the appellant on 1.5.1992.
WITH regard to the appellant''s claim for damages and the modification of the District Forum order it has been argued by respondent''s Counsel that appellant had misbehaved in the school and was responsible for the false and unfounded malicious complaints against the school and the school authorities to various dignitaries including the Lt. Governor of Delhi. It has been alleged that complainant obtained signatures of about 73-persons (parents) by misrepresenting that he was wanting to seek a meeting with Chairman. It has also been argued that appellant alongwith Shri Brahm Dutt, Shri A.K. Singla and Narender Kumar Sharma posed themselves as the representatives of the Parents Action Forum and filed complaints to the Lt. Governor against the school. 40 of the 73 parents when contacted by the respondent gave in writing that their signatures were obtained by misrepresentation and misused, 25 of the remaining were those who had already withdrawn their wards on account of their having failed in their examinations while 7 could not be identified.
IT has further been argued that seven complaints were made out which three were to the Lt. Governor and in all three of them alleged that Ms. Anu aged 24 years working as receptionist-clerk has been appointed Principal without possessing the requisite qualifications and experience. "We don''t know Mr. Jindal Chairman has done it so, perhaps a bedroom provided in the Chairman''s office may throw some light on this aspect", collection of building fund, Chairman misbehaves with the parents and staff and unqualified staff appointed etc. etc. One of the signatory to the complainant addressed by the so called Parents Action Forum also gave an interview Samachar Mail which was published on 13.5.1992 wherein it was alleged that the rest room next to the office of the Chairman has a bed, colour TV, VCP and some blue films which itself speaks of the going on in the school. He also said about the report lodged with the police Another complaint purported to have been signed by Ms. Sangeeta Reshwani, President Mahila Block Congrss Committee-I Shakurbasti III, Rohini addressed to Chief Secretary, Delhi was denied by her who said that she did not write the complaint. Respondent has pleaded for restraining the complainant and his associates from making such accusations and sullying the name of the women community and has prayed for the award of damages/appropriate compensation to her who is highly qualified and belongs to a respectable family enjoying high reputation in the community.
We have heard both the parties and gone through the record brought before us.
THE appellant it appears adopted a systematic campaign to malign the school, its Chairman and the Principal through various complaints made to different authorities and by going to the press which to our mind is unbecoming of a respectable educated person in making such vulgar accusations. Nobody would have objection if genuine complaints are made to the authorities concerned but if unfounded allegations casting aspertions on the character are made, then these have to be kept in view while considering the award of damages. Grievances can be got redressed through many other ways than resorting to character assassination. This mode has not appealed to us. Taking into consideration the facts brought before us we do not find any merit in the appeal and consequently dismiss the same. No. order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.