HARYANA BOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION Vs. MANISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 4. 1. 2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant direction has been given to the appellant-opposite party to pay Rs. 20,000 as compensation to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment and also to pay Rs. 1,100 as litigation expenses.

(2.) PUT shortly, the facts of the case are that the complainant had appeared in Matriculation Examination conducted in April, 2003 by the opposite party with Roll No. 686133. She was declared fail. The complainant applied for re-checking of the papers and was thereafter declared pass in the said examination. The opposite party failed to send the Matriculation Certificate to the complainant despite requests made to it with the result the complainant could not apply for admission in higher class and her one year was wasted due to negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Forced by these circumstances she filed complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 to her. The complaint was contested by the opposite party. In the written statement filed it was not disputed that initially when the complainant had appeared in Matriculation Examination in April 2003 she was declared fail and after she had applied for re-checking of the papers, she was declared successful on 8. 3. 2004. It was further stated that the Matriculation Certificate was sent to the complainant vide Registration No. 2611 through registered post but inadvertently the name of the school was written as Village Dhor Kalan instead of Village Dongra Jat and for that reason it could not be delivered to her. When this factual position came to the knowledge of the opposite party, the complainant was informed as per registered letter No. 2123 dated 25. 5. 2004 that she could obtain fresh Marks-Sheet/certificate after depositing the old Marks-Sheet in the office of the opposite party but she failed to comply with the same and for that reason the complaint merited dismissal. Taking into account the respective stands of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum found no substance in the stand of the opposite party and while accepting the complaint issued the directions in its order dated 4. 1. 2006 noticed above. Hence, the present appeal at the behest of the appellant-opposite party.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel representing the appellant-opposite party as well as father of the respondent-complainant has been heard at length.