State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri. Vikas Marotrao Junghare vs The Principal on 30 October, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR First Appeal No. A/17/59 (Arisen out of Order Dated 05/10/2016 in Case No. CC/251/2014 of District Nagpur) 1. SHRI. VIKAS MAROTRAO JUNGHARE R/O. JAI BAJRANG SOCIETY, SEMINARY HILLS, NAGPUR NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. THE PRINCIPAL BHARTI KRISHNA VIDYA VIHAR RAWAL BHAWAN, NEAR TELANGKHEDI GARDEN, CIVIL LINES, NAGPUR NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Jayshree Yengal MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 30 Oct 2017 Final Order / Judgement Per Shri B.A.Shaikh, Hon'ble Presiding Member.
1. This appeal is filed by the original complainant feeling aggrieved by the order dated 05/10/2016 passed by the District Forum, Nagpur in consumer complaint No.251/2014, by which the said complaint has been dismissed on the ground that the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer of the opposite party (for short O.P.). This appeal was taken up for hearing on admission on 20/03/2017. However none appeared for the appellant on 20/03/2017. Thereafter also none appeared for the appellant on 06/06/2017 and 02/08/2017 for hearing on admission of the appeal. Therefore the appeal came to be adjourned till this date for appropriate order.
2. We have perused the entire record and proceeding of this appeal. It is seen that the complaint was filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the original complainant/appellant against the respondent herein for declaration that the respondent rendered deficient service and adopted unfair trade practice and for direction to respondent to pay him compensation @ Rs.100/- per day with effect from 30/05/2013 till the school leaving certificate is properly corrected and also further direction to the respondent to correct the school leaving certificate of the son of the appellant by mentioning in it "Halba" caste and also to pay him litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
3. The respondent had appeared before the District Forum and filed the reply and resisted the complaint. The case of the respondent in short is that the appellant himself had submitted admission form showing the caste of his son as of general category and accordingly record of his son was mentioned in school leaving certificate was issued after the period of six years showing category of his son "General". It is also stated by the respondent that it has no power to correct the said transfer certificate and it is also not possible to correct the same.
4. The District Forum held under the impugned order that the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer. Therefore the District Forum dismissed the complaint by passing the impugned order.
5. We find on perusal of the entire record and proceeding of the appeal that the original complainant/appellant himself had submitted in the application form that his son belongs to general category. Moreover he did not take any steps for correction of record of his son about his caste for a long period of six years till the completion of the entire education of his son in the school of the respondent
6. In our view the respondent has rightly refused to correct the transfer certificate/school leaving certificate which was issued on the basis of record of his son maintained by the respondent. Therefore it can not be said that the respondent rendered deficient service and adopted unfair trade practice, by not correcting the school record showing caste of his son as "Halba".
7. Otherwise we also find that the original complainant/appellant does not fall within the definition of consumer and respondent does not fall within the definition of service provider as given under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, so far as the issuance of school leaving certificate/transfer certificate in concerned. Hence we find that the appeal is devoid of merits and it deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
// ORDER // The appeal is dismissed in limine.
No order as to cost in the appeal.
Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost.
[HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Jayshree Yengal] MEMBER