Amar Chand vs RANJIT MEMORIAL PUBLIC SCHOOL

BRIEF facts of the complaint are that O.P. was running a Private School where the complainant got his wards, 3 minor children admitted in his School in April, 1999 in 3rd, 4th Classes and UKG after paying full fees alongwith the ancillary charges. After some time children of the complainant started complaining that they were humiliated and harassed in the School for being members of Schedule Caste community. Complainant made oral complaints to the Principal of the School. However, complainant on 12.4.2000 submitted an application to the O.P. for obtaining School Leaving Certificate of his children. The School Leaving Certificate was not issued by the O.P. on one or the other pretext. Complainant fulfilled all the requirements i.e. filing of affidavits paying all the arrears and requisite fees for obtaining the School Leaving Certificate. Not only this complainant was compelled to pay the tuition fees of the children for the month of April, 2000 also though the children were not imparted any education for the month of April because they had discontinued their studies in the said school. Complainant has alleged that he approached Zonal Education Officer, Chief Education Officer and the Director, Education also but the O.P. even on their intervention did not issue the certificate for 8-9 months which resulted the loss of education for 1 year to the children and mental harassment was caused to the complainant.

O.P. was summoned. They filed their written version and resisted the complaint on the ground that the O.P. on receiving the application dated 12.4.2000 for obtaining School Leaving Certificate immediately processed the application and SLC was kept ready for distribution on 29th April, 2000 but it is the complainant who did not turn up to receive the SLC till October, 2000. O.P. denied all the allegations in the complaint. Parties have led their evidence. Their affidavits and certain documents have also been filed.

Heard learned Counsels for the parties. Learned Counsel for the O.P. has mainly argued that the complaint is not maintainable on the ground that imparting of education does not come under the purview of definition of consumer. They have relied on various authorities especially. University of Jammu and Kashmir & Others v. Brinder Nath & Ors., AIR 2000 Jammu and Kashmir 93. We have gone through this authority in detail. In this authority the main question was that the University had not made the internal assessment of the student and had not conveyed the marks of the internal assessment which resulted in declaring the result of the student as unsuccessful for want of few marks. The Division Bench of our Hon''ble High Court has dealt with this point in detail and has held that University while valuing the answer papers or undertaking the revaluation of answer papers or rechecking of marks awarded to a candidate at the instance of a candidate who had appeared for the examination is not performing a service which had been hired for consideration and that no consumer dispute could arise. It was finally held that holding of public examination evaluating answer papers and announcing results does not amount to rendering service for consideration. Not only this the O.P. has relied on various authorities who have unanimously kept the examination evaluating or re-evaluating papers outside the purview of consumer affairs. Another case has been referred, Chairman, Board of Examinations, Madras v. Mohideen Abdul Kader, Revision Petition No. 545 of 1994 dated 16.1.1996. We have gone through this authority also. The Commission has held as under : "We must make it clear that in this case or in the earlier cases this Commission did not consider the general question whether the imparting of education for consideration would come or not within the ambit of the service under the Act. Whether a University or an institution affiliated to imparting education is within an arena of consumer jurisdiction is a question which this Commission will consider and decide when it directly arises before it. What this Commission has decided in earlier cases is that a University or the Board in conducting public examination evaluating answer papers, announcing the results thereof and thereafter conducting rechecking of the marks of any candidate on the application made by the concerned candidate is not performing any service for hire and there is no arrangement of hiring of any service involved in such a situation as contemplated by Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. A candidate who appears for the examination cannot be regarded as a person who had hired or availed of the services of the University or Board for consideration."

This judgment does not help the O.P. because question of imparting education has not been discussed and decided in this judgment.

THERE is no doubt that Hon''ble Division Bench of our Hon''ble High Court has kept the Board outside the ambit of Consumer Protection Act regarding holding of examinations, declaring of results, evaluating question-answer paper etc. but the point involved in the present case is a different one. The present case is neither against the University nor against any Board. In the present case O.P. is a private body who is imparting education against the consideration. THERE is no doubt in it that the mushroom growth of private public schools are more or less running now on commercial basis. They are receiving good amounts of consideration for imparting education to the children. However, here we are not concerned only with an administrative matter that the complainant approached the O.P. for obtaining SLC for their wards. O.P. received full consideration. According to the rules and regulations of the school, in case they are not issuing the requisite certificate in time and cause harassment to the complainant, we feel this will come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act for mal-practices. For these reasons, therefore, we are of the view that the question which is involved in the present case is a different one than was involved in the authority submitted by the O.P. or in the Division Bench case of our High Court. Now we proceed to see whether the O.P. has committed any mal-practice and is liable of deficiency in service. The simple fact is that on 12.4.2000 complainant had applied for the SLC. O.P. admits that they received such application. Complainant has proved that he was charged Rs. 850/- and thereafter all dues were obtained from him even the tuition fee of April was obtained from him. We have to see that the plea taken by the O.P. that having kept the certificate ready on 29th of April is borne out by the records or not. From the evidence of the complainant it is manifestly clear that the O.P. has harassed the complainant by not issuing the requisite certificate in time which has compelled the complainant to approach the Chief Education Officer on 10.11.2000 and has complained to him that the O.P. is not issuing the requisite certificate to him. This application is dated 10.11.2000. The complainant on 26.12.2000 has approached the Zonal Education Officer and the Director Education also for their intervention. Chief Education Officer vide letter CEOJ/23888 dated 26.12.2000 has written to the Zonal Education Officer to please intimate the action taken against the O.P.-Principal, Ranjit Memorial School for not issuing SLC in favour of the complainant. Chief Education Officer has vide his letter No. CEOJ/9224-225 dated 16.11.2000 written to the Director Education and information has informed the Director that SLC has not been issued to the children of the complainant by the O.P. He has further informed the Director that he wrote a letter to the O.P.-Principal, Ranjit Memorial Public School but the O.P. refused to receive the copy of the letter. He has observed that it is clear harassment to the parents of the school-going children/students. Chief Education Officer vide letter CEOJ/18666-67 dated 6.11.2000 has written a letter to the O.P. directly spelting out that the O.P. is demanding for over-charges of dues from the complainant for issuing the certificate which is against the rules. The Principal-O.P. was directed by the CEO to issue certificate by charging actual dues. This all correspondence has happened in October, November and December which belies the whole stand of the O.P. that he had kept certificates ready by 29th April, 2000. Besides, this complainant and his witnesses also have supported the plea of complainant that no certificates were issued till the end of the year which caused harassment to the complainant. There is no convincing evidence on the record on the part of the O.P. to prove that he had kept the certificates ready by 29th April, 2000. Had it been done so, the Principal should have sent it by post to the complainant had the complainant not approached the Principal for receiving the certificates. The stand of the O.P. seems to be concocted and after-thought for which he is to be made liable for deficiency of service.

FOR these reasons, therefore, we allow the complaint. We don''t agree with the huge amount demanded by the complainant as the compensation because it is also equally proved from the record that the complainant had got the admission of the children in the beginning of the year 2000 in the Ambedkar Private School so their education carrier did not suffer. However, we compensate the complainant by asking the O.P. to pay Rs. 40,000.00 as compensation and Rs. 5,000.00 as litigation charges. The whole amount be paid within a period of 4 weeks failing which interest @ 9% P.A. is to be paid on the whole amount. A copy of this order be given to the parties to be collected by them on their own in person or through the authorized agent. Complaint allowed.