SAINT THERESAS CONVENT SCHOOL Vs. PAUL SAMUEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 1.8.2002 passed by District Forum, Karnal in Complaint Case No. 594 of 2002, whereby while partially accepting the complaint filed by the respondent -complainant, the following directions have been given to the appellant -opposite party:

(2.) IN order to focus the controversy involved, the essential facts need to be noticed. Paul Samuel -minor was a student of appellant s school of class VIII -B. He appeared in the final examination for the said class in the month of February, 2002 and result was declared on 27.3.2002. The complainant along with his father visited the school premises and found that the result of the complainant has been withheld on the ground that the complainant has not cleared dues and for that reason the DMC was not issued to him. The father of the complainant visited the school premises on 3.4.2002 and insisted upon the Principal of the school to permit his son to the 9th class but he was informed to clear the dues before the complainant could be permitted to sit in 9th class. Thereafter Rs. 600 were deposited by the father of the complainant on 6.4.2002 and he was asked to come to the school on 8.4.2002. Accordingly, the father of the complainant visited the school on 8.4.2002 and requested for issuance of DMC of the complainant and also to allow him to sit in the 9th class but his request was not acceded to by the Principal of the school, rather he was informed that he should get his son admitted in some school at Nilokheri and his DMC will be sent by post. The father of the complainant approached sister B.S. Nora, Provincial Superior, Provincial House of the School through letter to get his son admitted in the school but finding no response to the request made, the complainant, who is a minor through his father instituted the present complaint seeking direction against the appellant to admit his son in the 9th class after treating him as a regular student and further claimed compensation of Rs. 2 lac for mental agony, pain and harassment suffered by the complainant and his father besides other family members.

(3.) ON notice, the appellant filed appearance. In the written statement filed, it did not deny that result of 8th class was declared on 27.3.2002 and as the complainant had not cleared his outstanding dues for the month of April - June, 2001 and October - November, 2001 his result was withheld and he was asked to clear the arrears. The same were deposited on 6.4.2002 and thereafter the result of the complainant was declared in which he was shown to have failed. They maintained that the complainant had passed his classes in two years and in 8th class he had failed twice and thus he does not come under the Rules 8, 4, 7 and 6 of the school and for that reason he could not be promoted to 9th class. They justified the action taken about the striking off the name of the complainant from the school rolls. They further maintained that the DMC was offered to the complainant but the father of the complainant refused to accept the same. In these circumstances, they denied any deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.