INDU SHARMA vs Gurvindr Singh Zee Study Point School

DISSATISFIED with the tenfold enhancement of compensation awarded by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission from Rs. 2,000 awarded by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib to Rs. 20,000, the complainant has filed this revision petition seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 along with interest @ Rs. 24% per year.

STATED briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant got her daughter Karein Sharma admitted into the coaching institute run by the respondent and deposited a sum of Rs. 7,400 which allegedly included Rs. 1,510 to be deposited with the Punjab School Education Board for appearing in the Board ''s examination as a regular candidate. However, the respondent, enrolled the daughter of the petitioner with the Punjab School Education Board as a private candidate thereby deceiving the complainant and her daughter which resulted in the complainant ''s daughter having lost the opportunity to reappear in the failed subjects. After a representation including to the Secretary, Punjab School Education Board, a complaint was filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service, seeking compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 on the ground of mental tension, pain, agony and harassment. In addition, refund of Rs. 7,400 along with interest @ 24% p.a. was also sought. On notice being issued by the District Forum, the respondent resisted the complaint. The District Forum on appreciation of the respective evidences produced by the parties, even though held that the respondent had given tuition to the complainant ''s daughter, observed that, he had not remitted the required total fee for practical papers as a result of which the candidature of the complainant ''s daughter was placed in late arrival category and her result was declared rather late. The contention of the respondent that he was not aware of the School Education Board revising the fee for practical papers midway was not fully accepted by the District Forum and for a limited deficiency, it awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,000 to be paid to the petitioner by the respondent within one month from the date of receipt of its order. However, not satisfied with the said compensation, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission who, as already stated, has enhanced the compensation from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 20,000. The complainant is yet not satisfied with this award of the State Commission and has filed this revision petition.

WE have heard the petitioner who appeared in person and argued her case. Her main contention is that the respondent had played with the academic life of her daughter. He had taken necessary fee for enrolling her daughter for regular examination before the Punjab School Education Board but had enrolled her only as a private candidate putting her to serious disadvantage of not getting an opportunity to reappear in the failed subjects as a result of which she had to reappear for the same examination thereby losing one year of her academic life. We have also gone through the orders passed by the Fora below and have considered the contentions raised by the complainant at the time of arguments before us.

SUFFICE it to say that the complainant enrolled her daughter with the respondent who is running a coaching institute and appears to have approached the respondent/coaching institute to take follow up action on her behalf to get her daughter enrolled for appearing in the Board ''s examination of the Punjab Education Board. While she claims that she had paid for her daughter ''s enrolment as a regular candidate, the respondent enrolled her daughter only as a private candidate. The main difference between enrolment as a private candidate vis-a-vis a regular candidate is that if the regular candidate fails in his/her attempts in some subjects, he/she is entitled to reappear in the failed subjects while in case of private candidate, the opportunity of reappearance in failed subjects is not available. Be that it may be, we find that both the Fora below have duly considered this aspect and we are not in a position to appreciate as to how the respondent who is running a private coaching institute can be held liable. No rules/regulations have been brought to our notice from which it could be established that the coaching centre was authorized by the Board to enroll regular students. In any case, the complainant having been awarded an enhancement of Rs. 20,000, we find no justification for interference in the findings of the Fora below in exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Revision Petition accordingly is dismissed in limine. Revision Petition dismissed.