BAL BHAWAN PUBLIC SCHOOL vs SHIV SHANKAR GUPTA

WE are sorry to comment that justice delivery system with regard to consumer disputes arising from the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is pathetic and has lost its object and aims to ensure the adjudication within three to five months solely because of not only the indifferent and insensitive attitude of the Government but its audacity to challenge those who call upon it to ensure the implementation and enforcement of the Act in letter and spirit to ameliorate the plight of poor consumer at large.

RECENTLY, we had passed very adverse comments against the Government of NCT of Delhi as to its attitude towards the plight of the consumers as their disputes are not being decided within the statutory limit of three months or six months depending upon case to case and had recommended to create more Benches of the State Commissin as well as more District Fora in respect of those District Fora where the pendency of cases is more than 500 to 1000 cases. It is in view such a large number of pendency of cases that the main object of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as contemplated by Section 13(3)(A) has been sacrificed. We are pained to have come across this case which has taken more than 9 long years because of the aforesaid inaction and insensitivity on the part of the Government. When the incumbent President of this Commission took over, as many as 4724 cases were pending besides 1494 miscellaneous matters out of which more than 3000 were pending for the last more than 10 to 15 years. Faced with such a huge problem of backlog and increased inflow of new cases as during July, 2004 to 1st October, 2006 as many as 3104 new matters/cases were instituted and similarly in District Forum of New Delhi and ISBT where more than two thousands cases were pending for years that this Commission made recommendations for creating additional Benches and additional District Fora.

It has taken more than 9 years for this simple and short matter involving compensation of Rs. 900 only to reach the stage of final decision as thousands of cases have been gathering just because of the negative attitude of the Government.

HERE is a case where the appellant was directed to refund the amount of Rs. 550 charged by it for issuance of school leaving certificate and also to pay Rs. 250 as compensation and Rs. 250 towards cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred this appeal in the year 1999 whereas the impugned order was passed on 11.12.1998. Admittedly the appellant school has facility to teach students upto 7th class only. In March, 1998, son of the respondent passed 7th class from the appellant school. In April, 1998 when he demanded from the Principal of appellant school, school leaving certificate of his son, he was forced to pay several visits and ultimately was charged as fee of Rs. 550 against delivery of the said certificate. Though the impugned order was ex parte order but the learned Counsel for the appellant appeared and contended that the respondent was a student of Bal Bhawan Public School, Mayur Vihar Branch of the appellant school and not the Gandhi Nagar Branch of the school as the said branch is upto class 6th and in this respect, the appellant has produced certain documents issued by the Directorate of Education and secondly that attendance record showed that respondent attended the school upto 19.4.1998 and therefore, the fee of Rs. 550 was charged towards tuition fee for the month of April, 1998 and not towards the school leaving certificate and thus the appellant is not guilty for deficiency in service and is not liable to refund the aforesaid fees compensation and cost of litigation.

HE further contended that the Principal of Mayur Vihar Branch has not been made a party and therefore, he cannot be directed to refund the fees as the aforesaid amount was charged by Mayur Vihar Branch. It is painful that the appellant has taken such pleas only to avoid refund of an amount of Rs. 550 that respondent was a student of Mayur Vihar Branch and not Gandhi Nagar Branch and the amount of Rs. 550 was charged towards the tuition fee and not towards school leaving certificate. The documents produced by the respondent as to the fee being paid by him from time to time and so much that in the year 1996 when he was a student of class 6th show that it was Gandhi Nagar Branch of the appellant school that has been receiving the fee and the respondent had been studying in the said school. The receipt in question shows that Rs. 550 were charged against the school leaving certificate and not as tuition fee. Let us assume for the sake of argument that it was Mayur Vihar Branch of the appellant school that had demanded the fee of Rs. 550 and not the Gandhi Nagar Branch.

NO service provider like the one in question who runs several branches in the city or elsewhere can absolve itself or escape from the acts of omission and commission of Principals of their branches as the ultimate liability is of the main service provider irrespective of the fact whether service is being availed from any of its branch. It is the main service provider who is liable vicariously as well as directly.

FURTHER no rule has been produced before us that entitles the appellant school who has branches at Gandhi Nagar and Mayur Vihar and may be at other places also to charge fee from the student for issuance of ''school leaving certificate''. In our view it is a matter of right for a student to obtain such a certificate free of charge. This certificate only establishes a fact that the student has studied in the said school and helps in getting admission in some other school and, therefore, any kind of imperfection, shortcoming or delay or inadequacy in such a service amounts to deficiency in service. The consideration for issuing of said certificate is inherent in the fees and other charges paid by the students during the period when he had been obtaining education. Various receipts produced by the respondent show that the appellant had not only been charging the tuition fees and maintenance fee to the tune of Rs. 200 but also development fund of Rs. 550 and Rs. 300 examination fees besides tuition fee, etc. If such is the consideration being received by the appellant-school some of which are not directly related to the imparting of education like maintenance fund or development charges, such a practice is uncalled for as main service being provided by the school is imparting education against considerarion.

No institution or Society can be allowed to start the educational institute or school unless it has all the wherewithal or paraphernalia. It can only charge consideration for imparting education and not for maintenance or building fund or any other kind of fund or charge that is not directly related to the service of imparting education. To charge such funds is unfair, unethical and unscrupulous practice as through these charges they want to build up the school or institute whereas it is the sole responsibility of the Institution or Society to set up the full-fledged institute or a school before starting it. Any fault or imperfection or inadequacy in this regard itself amounts to deficiency in service which as defined by Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 means as under: "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shotcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.

THE conduct of the appellant school in this case is highly reprehensible and uncalled for and should have been visited with a punitive damages but the District Forum has been very lenient to the appellant school in ordering very little compensation and cost of litigation. In the result apeal is dismissed being highly misconceived and wholly devoid of merit with a cost of Rs. 1,000. THE aforesaid payments shall be made within 15 days of receipt of this order. By this order, we hereby restrain all the institutes, societies, educational bodies, schools who impart every and any kind of education, training, coaching and/or engaged in any kind of activity concerned with imparting education of any and every kind from charging any other consideration like maintenance fund, building fund or any other kind of fund except the tuition fees and reasonable fee of additional activities if imparted and any violation, if brought to our notice, shall be visited with heavy punitive damages and even sentence of imprisonment or fine or both. They cannot be allowed to thrive upon those whom they provide the service of education, training for which they charge fees independently. Their main object is to impart education and not build their building or property by charging such funds.

THIS case has further impelled us to hold the Government of NCT of Delhi guilty for deficiency in service in not providing the service of arranging the decision of the consumer disputes within the statutory period as prescribed by Section 13(3A) of the Cosumer Protection Act, 1986 i.e. within three to five months. In spite of charging consideration on their complaints as this provision is a contract of service between the Government and the consumers, as it is due to grossest deficiency in service by not providing the requisite number of District Fora, Benches of State Commission that may be necessary for deciding the complaints of the consumer in terms of Section 13(3A) of the Act. Until this provision exists on the Statute Book, the Government shall be bound to provide infrastructure for ensuring the object and purpose of Section 13(3A) are best served. By this general order, we direct that every consumer who shall be filing complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 w.e.f. 1.11.2006 shall be entitled for compensation of Rs. 10,000 payable by the Government of NCT Delhi either through its Chief Secretary or Secretary (Consumer Affairs) if his complaint is not decided within the period of one year on account of Government of NCT of Delhi being guilty for deficiency in service in not ensuring the decision of the complaint preferably within the statutory period as prescribed under Section 13(3A) of the Act i.e. within three to five months for want of requisite infrastructure number of District Fora, Benches of State Commission as may be necessary for deciding the complaints of the consumers strictly in terms of Section 13(3A) of the Act. Fdr, if any, deposited by the appellant be returned to the appellant forthwith under proper receipt.

A copy of this order, as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the Record Room.

COPY be sent to all the National Dailies for the information of public at large as well as the concerned Institution. Copy be sent to Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi.

Copy be sent to Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Government of NCT of Delhi.

COPY be sent to all the District Fora. Ordered accordingly.