BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION Vs. NAVNEET KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order two appeals being F. A. No.61/96 and F. A. No.215 of 1996 are for disposal. Both these appeals have been filed by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh Bhopal and the respondent is Navneet Kumar, the complainant. Appeal No.61 of 1996 has been filed against the order of the District Forum dated 9.1.96 whereby the application filed by the Board for setting aside the ex parte order was dismissed. Appeal No.215/96 has been filed by the Board against order dated August 1,1995 whereby the District Forum granted relief to the complainant directing the appellant-board to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- as damages and a sum of Rs.1,000/- as costs.

(2.) Navneet Kumar filed the complaint before the District Forum against the Board as well as the Principal Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Bairagarh, Bhopal. Earlier Navneet Kumar appeared in 10+2 examination conducted by the Board but failed. He applied for re-evaluation/re-counting of the marks. Finding no response, he approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in 1992. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed. Subsequently, he submitted an application for appearing as regular student in 10+2 examination to be conducted by the Board during the session 1992-93. Since he did not receive the roll number, the complaint was filed. He claimed a sum of Rs.90,000/- as damages as his one academic session was wasted. He also claimed Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses. He also suffered loss on account of his visits from Muktsar, his place of residence, the Bairagarh, Bhopal, on different occasions. The Board inspite of service did not put in appearance and was proceeded ex-parte and on behalf of the complainant his attorney Sh. M. R. Batra submitted his affidavit. The complainant also produced his own evidence. Some documents were also produced. Accepting the version of the complainant and evidence produced the impugned order was passed holding that there was deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Board in not sending the roll number to the complainant.

(3.) On perusal of the records of the District Forum and the assertion made in the complaint, we are of the view that we should exercise revisional jurisdiction apart from appellate jurisdiction which has been invoked by the appellant, challenging the original order passed by District Forum. We are conscious of the fact that once an order has been passed by the District Forum under Sec.14 of the Consumer Protection Act, the same could not be reviewed or set-aside by moving an application for doing so ex-parte. Present is a case where the District Forum lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. No cause of action much less part thereof accrued at Muktsar where the complainant is residing. He submitted his admission form through the school-opposite party No.2 which is also in Bhopal to the Board. The assertion that the Board was required to send the Roll No. at Muktsar address and thus cause of action or part thereof accrued at Muktsar is devoid of merit. The complainant as regular student of school at Bhopal, submitted the application to the Board for taking 10+2 examination which was to be conducted at Bhopal. Mere sending of roll number, even if the version of the complainant is admitted, would not indicate accrual of cause of action at Muktsar. Thus the District Forum, Faridkot could not entertain the complaint.