Bikar Singh vs RISHI HIGH SCHOOL

IT is an appeal against the order dated 27.8.1999 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BIKAR Singh-appellant No. 1 (complainant No. 1 before the District Forum) (hereinafter called complainant No. 1) is the son of appellant No. 2 Smt. Kartar Kaur (complainant No. 2 before the District Forum) (hereinafter called complainant No. 2) had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) before the District Forum seeking damages to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-, apart from redressal of their other grievances. Complainant No. 1 was a student of 10th Class of Rishi High School, Kotkapura-respondent No. 1 (opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum) (hereinafter called opposite party No. 1). He had to appear in Matriculation examination to be held by the Punjab School Education Board, SAS Nagar in February/March, 1999. According to the complainant, respondents-opposite parties (hereinafter called the opposite parties) had assumed him that he would be positively appearing in the 10th Class examination. Since he had come to study, he was deprived of a lot of money by the opposite parties in the shape of admission fee and monthly fee etc. He further stated in the complaint before the District Forum that he had paid the examination fee to enable himself to appear in the annual matriculation examination. He was asked to bring his mother in the last week of November, 1998. When both of them appeared before respondent No. 3 opposite party No. 3 Smt. Punam Devi (hereinafter called opposite party No. 3) she had insulted them. She had also remarked as to how complainant No. 1 will clear Matriculation Examination and that he had become an old man. Many other students and members of the teaching staff were also present there at that time. She had turned them out of the school and then they filed the complaint on 26.11.1998 but the authorities concerned did not take any action. Opposite parties did not keep their assurance to the effect that complainant No. 1 would be allowed to appear in Matriculation Examination to be held in February/March, 1999. It was then stated in the complaint that the complainants had repeatedly requested the opposite parties to regularise complainant No. 1 and to teach him but they did not bother. It was then stated in the complaint that complainant No. 1 was good at studies but because of indolence and negligence of the opposite parties, he had to suffer and his careeer was being spoiled. Finding no other way they had filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to keep complainant No. 1 on the roll of the school and to allow him to appear in the Matriculation Examination as a regular student.

Opposite parties vide their reply contested the complaint. Preliminary objections were raised that no consumer dispute was made out or disclosed from the allegations made in the complaint. It was stated that the complaint was bad for misjoinder of Kartar Kaur (complainant No. 2) and opposite party No. 3 who was also known as Vijay Bhardwaj. On merits, it was stated that complainant No. 1 could be allowed to appear in the Matriculation Examination by the Punjab School Education Board if he had continued to attend the school. According to the rules and regulations of the Punjab Educational Code, a student has to attend at least 75 per cent of the attendance when school opened and attendance was enumerated from the day of the start of the classes in the school till 14 days before the start of annual examinations. It was then stated in the reply that despite sending personal messages by the opposite parties, complainant No. 1 did not join the school. Consequently, his name was struck off from the rolls on 30.11.1998. None of the complainants had approached the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint. None of them had applied for readmission to the classes. It was denied that opposite party No. 3 had misbehaved with the complainants. It was then asserted in the reply that the complaint had been filed on false allegations and was, thus, liable to be dismissed.

THE complainants in their rejoinder controverted the pleas taken by the opposite parties in their written statement and reiterated those made in the complaint. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after having perused the record carefully in the light of the arguments addressed, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case as well as the order of the District Forum carefully. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. Opposite parties had received the examination fee from complainant No. 1 for appearing in the Matriculation Examination to be held in February/March, 1999 but his name was struck off from the rolls of school after he had remained absent from the school consecutively for 10 days from 21.11.1998 to 30.11.1998. Copies of the attendance register have been produced on the file as Annexures 9 to 14. Copy of the attendance register for the month of November has been produced on the file. Its perusal shows that complainant No. 1 had remained absent from the school from 21.11.1998 to 30.11.1998 i.e., for 7 consecutive days at a stretch. Kuldeep Singh, the Class Incharge of 10th Class and Smt. Punam Devi, the Principal of the School in their respective affidavits had also maintained that complainant No. 1 had remained absent from the school from 21.11.1998 to 30.11.1998. Both of them were cross-examined at length by the Counsel for the complainants. No dent could be made in their statement. They had consistently stated that complainant No. 1 had remained absent from the school from 21.11.1998 to 30.11.1998. There was nothing in their cross-examination to show that they had not made a true statement in that regard because their oral version was supported by the entries of the attendance register. Thus, admittedly the complainant had remained absent from the School from 21.11.1998 to 30.11.1998. Under the Educational Code vide paragraph No. 201, the name of the student who remains absent without leave for six consecutive school days, shall be struck off the roll and shall not be re-admitted without payment of fresh entrance fee etc. In the instant case, complainant No. 1 had remained absent from the school from 21.11.1998 to 30.11.1998 for 7 consecutive school days. Since his absence was for more than 6 consecutive school days, opposite parties were entitled to strike off his name from the rolls of the school.

IT is not case of the complainants that complainant No. 1 or his mother had ever applied for re-admission in the school. Neither complainant No. 1 in his affidavit Ex. P1 nor his mother in her affidavit Ex. P-3 had stated that complainant No. 1 had been regularly attending the school during the period 21.11.1998 to 30.11.1998 or that he had not absented from the school for that period. Apart from that, it is pertinent to mention here that the opposite parties had opted to issue roll number slip bearing No. 559717 to complainant No. 1 as would appear from the interlocutory order recorded on the file on 1.3.1999. But that offer was not accepted by the complainants. If complainant No. 1 was in fact serious to appear in the examination, then he could have received the roll number slip and appear in the Examination as Matriculation Examinations had not yet started when the offer was made. Thus, the complainants'' allegation that opposite party No. 3 did not keep her words regarding appearance of complainant No. 1 in the Matriculation Examination cannot be accepted. The oral explanation given by the complainants and the contents of affidavit Ex. P2 of one Shri Kewal Singh has not rightly been relied upon by the District Forum. Kewal Singh in his affidavit Ex. P2 stated that on 19.11.1998 Thana Singh, the father of complainant No. 1 had gone to his house and had told him that the Principal of the School did not issue the roll number to his son for appearing in the Matriculation Examination and he had requested him (Kewal Singh) to ascertain from the school as to why the roll number was not being issued. IT was further mentioned in the affidavit that he had made enquiries from the school through telephone and was told by opposite party No. 3 that since complainant No. 1 was more than 20 years of age, he could not be allowed to appear in the Matriculation Examination. IT is pertinent to note here that even Thana Singh has not corroborated the statement of Kewal Singh made in his affidavit. In these circumstances, Kewal Singh through his affidavit Ex. P-2 was not at all helpful to the complainants. In view of our discussion made above, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.