Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 794 (HP)

Ravleen Kaur (Ms) (minor) v. Davinder Brar, Chairperson, Doon Valley International Public School

2010-05-05

ARUN KUMAR GOEL, CHANDER SHEKHAR SHARMA, SAROJ SHARMA

body2010
ORDER (Arun Kumar Goel, J.) (Retd.), President (Oral) - This appeal is directed against the order passed by District Forum, Sirmour at Nahan in Complaint No. 03/2006, dated 16.10.2008, By means of impugned order, complaint filed by the appellant has been dismissed. Admitted facts giving rise to this appeal are, that the appellant was a student of respondent No.2 - School, Of which respondent No.3 is the Principal and respondent No.1 is the Chairperson of the said School. Appellant was a student in Class-IX during the year, 2005. As per averments made in the complaint, she was asked to join tuition classes being run by the respondent - School on payment of Rs.2700 / - per month. According to her, she declined to join these classes. As a result of it, School Management was not happy with her. All teachers of the School, who were concerned with the appellant, had been directed to insist upon the appellant to join these tuition classes. She was being ignored by the teachers for her not agreeing to this suggestion. She was administered beatings by the teachers. Her further case is that finally she was compelled to join the evening tuition classes or leave the School. 2. In the aforesaid background, on 12.8.2005, parents of the appellant approached School authorities for issuing School Leaving Transfer Certificate, which was not issued to her in time, according to her. Thus, she could not get admission during this period and as a result of it, her one precious year was wasted. In the aforesaid background, Consumer Complaint No.03j2006 was filed against the respondents. 3. When put to notice, their stand was that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint, as there was no consumer disputes between the parties; appellant had no cause of action to maintain the same; and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Appellant being a student of the School was not disputed, and at the same time it is also the case of the respondents, that at no point of time any student including appellant was asked to join tuition classes, and according to them, these allegations are frivolous and without any merit. Appellant being a student of the School was not disputed, and at the same time it is also the case of the respondents, that at no point of time any student including appellant was asked to join tuition classes, and according to them, these allegations are frivolous and without any merit. Further case of the respondents as set out in their reply was, that the appellant was academically a poor student and they asked her parents to take care of her so that she improves in her studies. Allegation of the appellant that her parents had asked for School Leaving Transfer Certificate was specifically denied. It has been brought to our notice during hearing by the learned Counsel for the respondents, that the moment a student applies for School Leaving Transfer Certificate, it is issued then and there, but a formal application has to be submitted. Allegations of School Leaving Certificate having been asked for on 12.8.2005 were specifically disputed. Likewise, allegations of misdemeanour on the part of the teachers against the appellant were also denied. 4. With a view to support the plea of the appellant that School Leaving Certificate was asked for on 12.8.2005, both her parents i.e. Jagdishwar Singh and Smt. Harjeet Kaur have filed the respective affidavits. These are at pages 35 and 47 to 51 of the complaint file. There is also a statement without oath of the appellant. To rebut these affidavits, evidence has been led by the respondents on the affidavit of respondent No.3, Principal of the School. So far affidavits of appellant and her parents are concerned, they are one on the question of School Leaving Transfer Certificate having been asked for from the respondents on 12.8.2005. They have gone even to the extent of stating in their respective affidavits that transfer certificate had not been given even upto this date. These affidavits are of 7.3.2007, and of the same date is the statement without oath of the appellant. On the other hand, affidavit of respondent No.3 justifies the stand taken by the respondents regarding appellant being a academically poor student and her parents, having been asked to ensure that she improves. She has further stated in her affidavit that the appellant was in School upto 3.8.2005 and thereafter she did not attend the School. On the other hand, affidavit of respondent No.3 justifies the stand taken by the respondents regarding appellant being a academically poor student and her parents, having been asked to ensure that she improves. She has further stated in her affidavit that the appellant was in School upto 3.8.2005 and thereafter she did not attend the School. Further plea set out in her affidavit is, that form of appellant was sent to the CBSE on 10.8.2005. According to her, since no application was submitted for issuance of School Leaving Transfer Certificate, as such the same was not issued. 5. Assuming the stand of respondent No.3 in her affidavit to be correct, fact remains that atleast when complaint was filed, and appearance had been put in by the respondents on 8.6,2006, certificate could be handed over to the appellant in the Court itself with a view to give quietus to this litigation. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the affidavits of the parents of the appellant as well as her own statement without oath inspire more confidence and need to be given credence too, as against the affidavit of respondent No.3. Why even after filing of the complaint, School Leaving Certificate was not issued, only answer given by the learned Counsel for the respondents was, that unless the School Leaving Certificate is not asked for in writing, his clients are not liable to issue the same. This plea is being noted to be rejected. 6. Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that this case has another facet. Per him, mother of the appellant was a teacher at the relevant point of time with respondent No.2, as such there was hardly any occasion for her client not to issue School Leaving Transfer Certificate in case it had been applied for. Prima facie, this submission appears to be quite attractive, but when examined in depth in the background of this case, its hollowness is exposed. We are of the view that the appellant would come to Court only after she had approached the authorities for School Leaving Transfer Certificate and it was not issued to her. There is not a murmur in the affidavit of respondent No.3 in this behalf regarding the same having been asked on 12.8.2005 and its having not been issued till the date the affidavits were filed. There is not a murmur in the affidavit of respondent No.3 in this behalf regarding the same having been asked on 12.8.2005 and its having not been issued till the date the affidavits were filed. We confronted the learned Counsel for the respondent with this ground reality, his only submission was that without application, there was no question of issuing any School Leaving Transfer Certificate. Since we have accepted the version of the appellant and evidence placed on record by them, so this plea is rejected. 7. Cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussion is, that the appellant has been wronged by the respondents who were not only deficient in service by not issuing the School Leaving Transfer Certificate, but they also indulged into unfair trade practice by withholding the same in the light of the evidence duly discussed hereinabove. In these circumstances, we are of the view that she needs to be compensated by the respondents. She lost one year because of inaction on the part of the respondents, but we are not in a position to take back the clock, therefore we feel that she needs to be awarded monetary compensation. Accordingly, we direct respondents, who are held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.50,000/- to the appellant by or before 31.5.2010 by means of a bank draft, failing which this amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 12.1.2006 till the date of payment/ deposit, whichever is earlier. She is also held entitled to cost of litigation in the complaint as well as of this appeal, which is quantified in lumpsum sum of Rs.5,000/-. While allowing this appeal in these terms, order passed by District forum, Sirmour at Nahan in Complaint No.03/2006, dated 16.10.2008 is set aside and resultantly said complaint is allowed. Learned Counsel for the appellant has undertaken to collect copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary at Shimla as per rules, whereas Mr. Dabinder Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that copy of this order may be sent to him in the like manner at his address, District Courts, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. While accepting this prayer, office shall do the needful. M.R.B.