APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

ORDER

C.VISWANATH

1.          The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section           21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in F.A. No. 730/2011 dated 04.02.2013.

2.          Respondent No.1/Complainant stated that he joined the Petitioner’s School/Opposite Party No.1 in 2005 in class 9 and he paid a donation of Rs.17,000/-  apart from the school fees, for which no receipt was given. He was a brilliant student of 12^th class and obtained 84% marks in High School. He failed to attend some classes as he was ill, but whenever he was a little better, he used to attend them. Once he fell unconscious in the school premises, but no proper care was taken by the school administration and he was sent back alone. On 25.02.2009, students were invited for collecting their roll numbers, but 12 students were not issued roll numbers as CBSE had withheld their roll numbers and they were asked to come on 27.02.2010. On 27.02.2010, the Petitioner was refused roll number, due to which he fell unconscious. On that very day he rushed to Karkardooma Court and a notice was issued to CBSE. On 28.02.2010, a statement was made before the Court that all roll numbers were given to the Principal of the school.  On the orders of the Court, the roll numbers were handed over at 3:00 p.m. As a result, his performance came down and because of lower percentage, he could not be admitted to a good course. Under the management quota Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.30 lakhs were demanded for a management quota seat. It was all due to the act of omission on the part of the Management and the Principal of the school. Hence, the Complaint was filed.  

3.          The Complaint was contested by the Petitioner as well Respondent No.2, whereby they have denied that any capitation fee was taken from Respondent No.1. It was also alleged that the statutory obligation under the Delhi School Education Act and Rules have not been complied. The entire story was scooped-up.  Respondent No. 1 was irregular in attending school. This was regularly informed to the parents and final notice was sent on 13.12.2008. Respondent No.1 had not submitted medical certificate of his illness and undated medical certificate without the signature of the patient was for the first time produced on 26.02.2008 showing dengue as the cause of illness.  His attendance was 232 out of 338. As per CBSE Rules, a student was required to put-up a minimum of 75% of attendance. The attendance of the students was intimated to the CBSE on 02.02.2009.  Since the CBSE had not replied regarding condonation of attendance, the roll number was withheld. In Civil Suit order dated 28.02.2010, it was directed to issue roll number and the same was complied. As such there was no deficiency on the part of the Petitioner.  

4.          The District Forum, vide order dated 11.11.11 dismissed the Complaint on the ground that in the letter dated 28.02.2009 issued by CBSE to the Petitioner, it was mentioned that the competent authority of the Board had been pleased to condone the shortage in attendance in respect of some other students, including Respondent No.1 and the roll number was furnished by the Petitioner to Respondent No.1 on the same day. Therefore, we are unable to fasten any liability on the Petitioner, since prima facie it appears that Petitioner had handed over the roll number ticket to Respondent No.1 immediately on getting clearance form Respondent No.2.

5.          Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Respondent No.1 filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 04.02.2013 held that it would be worthwhile to mention that since Respondent No.1 has filed various documents with regard to fulfilment of requirement of all the byelaws of the CBSE, it was incumbent on the part of the school i.e. Petitioner to take steps for the issue of admit card/ roll number to all the students. After going through the order of the District Forum, we find that the District Forum has not considered the papers, submitted by Respondent No.1.  Findings recorded by the District Forum against the Respondent No.1 were biased. The crux of the matter was that despite the submission of medical certificate to the school, it had not taken any step to send the papers and obtain the condonation for shortage of attendance. Paper No.21 goes to show that the son of Respondent No.1 was suffering from dengue fever from 16.10.2008 to 07.11.2008 and this had been recorded by the Principal himself in as much as it bears the signature of the Principal. Respondent No.1 had also filed various medical certificates of the concerned doctor who examined Respondent No.1. Medical certificates have been submitted much in advance and it was the duty of the school to forward all these medical certificates to CBSE for obtaining condonation for shortage in attendance. Respondent No.1 has filed a copy of the information sought under RTI, wherein it is specifically stated that on 11.02.2009, CBSE asked the school with regard to condonation of shortage of attendance in respect of 13 students (including the Respondent No.1) under Rule 14(III) as to why the recommendations  have not been made for condonation of shortage  of attendance and only on 26.02.2009 at 4:00 p.m. the list of such students was sent to CBSE without any recommendation. This shows  not only sheer negligence  and deficiency on the part of the school in withholding the admit card/roll number of those whose life was at stake, as all these 13 students, including Akash Aggarwal, were to appear in class-12 examination so that they could get good marks and take admission in good college for further education. CBSE stated that the admit card/roll numbers were already sent to the School. The admit card/roll no. was not deliberately delivered to Respondent No.1 and therefore he had to seek legal recourse in the court of law and on the same day Civil Court directed to deliver the admit card immediately. The action of the Petitioner was uncalled for and it was not expected from it to adopt such deliberate inaction.  Thus, Appeal of Respondent No.1 was allowed and order passed by the District Forum was set-aside. The Complaint was allowed to the extent that Principal and Chairman, Bal Mandir Sr. Sec. School. Defence Enclave, Vikas Marg, Delhi should pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and  sheer suffering, inclusive of all the litigation charges within 30 days. In case this amount was not paid within 30 days, the Petitioner shall pay interest @9% p.a. till the date of realization. It was made clear that there was no liability of the CBSE in this case. Copy of judgement be sent to Director, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat, Delhi to initiate proceedings for cancellation of recognition/ affiliation of Bal Mandir Sr. Sec. School, Defence Enclave, Vikas Marg, Delhi and inform the State Commission.

6.          Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission.

7.          Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the Respondents.  Also carefully perused the record.

8.          Respondent No. 1 was a student of 12^th class of the Petitioner school and was to appear for the final board exams.  The Petitioner school was affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).  He was unwell from time to time and medical certificates were duly submitted.  On 25.02.2009, 12^th class students were called for issuance of admit cards/roll number for appearing in the ensuing board examination.  Respondent No. 1 was not issued the admit card and was asked to come on 27.02.2009, when he informed that CBSE had refused to issue admit card/roll number.  Thereupon, Respondent No. 1 approached Civil Court and on the orders of the Court, the Petitioner delivered the admit card at 3:00 PM on 28.02.2009.  Due to the late issuance of admit card, Respondent No. 1 was mentally disturbed and harassed, due to which he scored less marks than expected and therefore could not get admitted in a good college.  Due to this deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner, Respondent No.1 filed complaint before the District Forum.

9.          The State Commission rightly observed that despite submission of medical certificate, the Petitioner school had not taken any action to obtain condonation of shortage of attendance from CBSE.  Respondent No. 2 has filed a copy of the information sought under Right to Information Act, wherein it is specifically stated that on 11.02.2009 CBSE had asked the Petitioner school about the condonation of shortage of attendance of 13 students and only on 26.02.2009 at 4:00 PM, list of such students was sent to CBSE without any recommendation.  This clearly shows negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner keeping the future of students at stake. 

10.        The State Commission has rightly awarded a compensation of Rs.75,000/- for mental agony and harassment including litigation charges to Respondent No.1.  The Order of the State Commission is upheld to the extent of payment of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment including litigation charges.  The State Commission also rightly absolved CBSE of any liability in this case. As regards, initiation of proceedings for cancellation of recognition / affiliation of the Petitioner school, in view of the fact that several students studying in the Petitioner school would suffer irreparable loss and injury in case of de-recognition of the school, in the larger interest of other students studying in the Petitioner school, this direction of the State Commission is set aside. 

11.        In the result, the Revision Petition is partly allowed on the above terms.