PANKAJ JINDAL Vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two Cross Appeals bearing Nos.330 and 332, both of 2003 filed against order dated 3.4.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Complaint Case No.619 of 2000, awarding a total compensation of Rs.700/- besides costs of Rs.300/- to the complainant Shri Pankaj Jindal. This order is being passed in Appeal No.332 of 2003 filed by Shri Pankaj Jindal, complainant/appellant.

(2.) Shri Pankaj Jindal filed the complaint in the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of O. P.- Central Board of Secondary Education (for short hereinafter referred to as C. B. S. E.), Regional Office, Chandigarh in not issuing the requisite documents demanded by the complainant which he required for admission in paramedical course in the B. Sc. Physical Therapies (B. Ph. T) course for PGIMER, Chandigarh and in not issuing migration certificate to him. The allegation of negligence has also been levelled against the O. P.-C. B. S. E. In the complaint, a sum of Rs.2 lacs were claimed as compensation against the O. P.-C. B. S. E.

(3.) The O. P.-C. B. S. E. filed written statement in the District Forum wherein the maintainability of the complaint against it was disputed on the ground that it did not come within the definition of the provider of the service and was not required to render service as defined under Sec.2 (1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as the C. P. Act) and the complainant is also not a consumer as defined under Sec.2 (1) (d) of the C. P. Act. Initially the reply contained point of non-maintainability of the complaint but later on a detailed written statement was filed by the O. P. which is dated 6.6.2001. In this written statement, it was contended that the O. P.- C. B. S. E. was discharging its statutory function and not rendering any service for consideration as contemplated under the C. P. Act. Several authorities in support of this proposition were cited which are thirty in number. The O. P. also alleged that the complainant had not come to the District Forum with clean hands as he had wrongly alleged that his candidature for B. Sc. Physical Therapy was cancelled due to non-submission of documents in time. It was alleged that the candidature of the complainant was cancelled as he did not possess the prescribed qualification of having 50% marks in 10+2 examination and further he had not passed the examination with Biology as one of the subjects. Reference was made to Annexure P/3 in this regard. It was further contended that the complainant himself was negligent as he should have applied for migration certificate in 1998 after passing 10th Class examination or before appearing in Class 10+2 examination from the Board of School Education Haryana, Bhiwani. The complainant applied for first time on 26.7.2000 and his migration certificate was prepared by the O. P. but the same was not collected earlier than 21.8.2000, on which date it was handed over to the complainant who appeared in the office of the O. P.