BIKAR SINGH Vs. RISHI HIGH SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is an appeal against the order dated 27.8.1999 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot (hereinafter called the District Forum ).

(2.) Bikar Singh-appellant No.1 (complainant No.1 before the District Forum) (hereinafter called complainant No.1) is the son of appellant No.2 Smt. Kartar Kaur (complainant No.2 before the District Forum) (hereinafter called complainant No.2) had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) before the District Forum seeking damages to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-, apart from redressal of their other grievances.

(3.) Complainant No.1 was a student of 10th Class of Rishi High School, Kotkapura-respondent No.1 (opposite party No.1 before the District Forum) (hereinafter called opposite party No.1 ). He had to appear in Matriculation examination to be held by the Punjab School Education Board, SAS Nagar in February/march, 1999. According to the complainant, respondents-opposite parties (hereinafter called the opposite parties) had assumed him that he would be positively appearing in the 10th Class examination. Since he had come to study, he was deprived of a lot of money by the opposite parties in the shape of admission fee and monthly fee etc. He further stated in the complaint before the District Forum that he had paid the examination fee to enable himself to appear in the annual matriculation examination. He was asked to bring his mother in the last week of November, 1998. When both of them appeared before respondent No.3 opposite party No.3 Smt. Punam Devi (hereinafter called opposite party No.3) she had insulted them. She had also remarked as to how complainant No.1 will clear Matriculation Examination and that he had become an old man. Many other students and members of the teaching staff were also present there at that time. She had turned them out of the school and then they filed the complaint on 26.11.1998 but the authorities concerned did not take any action. Opposite parties did not keep their assurance to the effect that complainant No.1 would be allowed to appear in Matriculation Examination to be held in February/march, 1999. It was then stated in the complaint that the complainants had repeatedly requested the opposite parties to regularise complainant No.1 and to teach him but they did not bother. It was then stated in the complaint that complainant No.1 was good at studies but because of indolence and negligence of the opposite parties, he had to suffer and his careeer was being spoiled. Finding no other way they had filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to keep complainant No.1 on the roll of the school and to allow him to appear in the Matriculation Examination as a regular student.