ROHIT MAHAJAN Vs. DAV COLLEGE MANAGEMENT COMMI.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present complaint is against the D.A.V. College Management committee which is stated to be a registered society and the D.AV. ACC Sr. Public Secondary School, Barmana, District Bilaspur through its Principal as well as the Local management committee of the said School through its Chairman.

(2.) According to the complainant, he has been a student of the said school right from the inception and has had a good academic career also. However, due to unfavourable circumstances, he could not prepare himself for the annual examination in the academic year 1999 -2000 and thus failed in the same. He again took admission in the same class i.e. +1, but the opposite party No.2 i.e. the principal of the said school has not allowed him to join the classes or even visit the school, which is arbitrary on his part. On 26.4.2000, the peon of the school forcibly sent the complainant out of its premises by using un -parliamentary language regarding which report was lodged with the police, copy Annexure c -3. Despite all the efforts made by the complainant and his parents for letting him attend his classes, including meeting members of the Local Management Committee of the School, he has not been allowed to attend his classes. On this pleaded facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service as well as restrictive trade practice as defined under the consumer protection Act, 1986, hereinafter to be called the Act. He has also stated that he is a consumer as defined under section 2(c ) of the Act. Hence, the complaint, whereby he has quantified his claim against the opposite parties in the total sum of Rs. 5,61,350/ -. The complaint is supported by the affidavit of Ms. Veena Mahajan wife of Shri Susheel Mahajan, in her capacity of being the mother and natural guardian of the complainant who is stated to be a minor.

(3.) The opposite parties have filed a reply whereby various preliminary objections have been taken. It has been stated that the complainant is neither the consumer nor they are providing service as defined under the Act. Also, it has been the consistent view of the National commission as well as various state commissions that education and educational institutions are outside the scope of the Act. According to the opposite parties, they are imparting education which is a social utility service and hence the consumer court has no jurisdiction in the matter. Secondly, it has been stated that the complainant1 has no cause of action as the complaint discloses no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice against them. It has been stated in the reply that throughout the academic session 19999 -2000, the performance of the complainant as a student has been unsatisfactory. He had failed to obtain pass percentage in the Unit Tests, 1st Terminals and the final examination. The progress report of the complainant in this behalf and his final result card have been attached as Annexure R -1 and R -2 with the reply. It has further been stated that his performance report was well within his knowledge as well as his parents. It has also been stated that having failed in class -1x, he was advised by the principal of the said school to change from the science to the Arts stream which he flatly refused and insisted for readmission to the science stream. It was in this background that he was readmitted to science stream subject to the condition that his parents undertake that he would maintain discipline and his academic performance would be under scrutiny. Instead of giving such an undertaking, they lodged a false and frivolous complaint against the school with the Barmana Police station,. Bilaspur on 26.4.2000. As a result, the opposite party No.2 i.e. the Principal was compelled to send a communication dated 27.4.2000 by registered post to the father of the complainant intimating him that his performance would be under scrutiny and his admission form may be filled -in. Copy of the same is Annexure R -3 and R -4 respectively. Instead of doing the needful, the parents of the complainant sent a legal notice on false and baseless grounds, copy of which is Annexure R -5. It has been stated in the reply that the complainant has already got himself admitted in Government Sr. School, Dehar, District Mandi vide Admission No. 2486 on 26.6.2000, class -x1 medical group, which fact has been intentionally concealed from this commission. The last preliminary objection is that the complaint has been filed with malafide intention of harassing and humiliating the opposite party. On merits, the same stand has been taken as detailed above. The reply is supported by the affidavit of Ms Ram Parwan, Principal of the said school.