2010 (7) TMI 1088 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
2. Error by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in refusing to consider the Deputy Secretary's report.
3. Deficiency of service by the appellant.
4. Maintainability of the complaint.
5. Limitation period for filing the complaint.
6. Validity of the Deputy Secretary's report.

Summary:

Jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum:
The Supreme Court examined whether the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Phulbani had the jurisdiction to entertain and allow the complaint filed by respondent No.1 for correction of his date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate.

Error by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission:
The Court also considered whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission committed an error by refusing to consider the report dated 31.10.1995 submitted by the Deputy Secretary of the appellant Board regarding the eligibility of respondent No.1 to take the supplementary examination.

Deficiency of Service by the Appellant:
Respondent No.1 claimed that he was a consumer and there was a deficiency of service on the appellant's part, leading to incalculable loss due to rejection of his candidature by various recruiting agencies for non-production of the original matriculation certificate.

Maintainability of the Complaint:
The Supreme Court noted that the National Commission overruled the appellant's objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint, observing that the appellant's counsel had agreed for disposal of the complaint on merits.

Limitation Period for Filing the Complaint:
The appellant argued that the complaint filed in 1999 for correction of the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate issued in 1983 was barred by time, and the District Forum committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the same.

Validity of the Deputy Secretary's Report:
The Court highlighted that the Deputy Secretary's report found that respondent No.1 had taken admission in Class X based on a fake transfer certificate, suggesting that the original pass certificate issued to him should be canceled. The State Commission and the National Commission ignored this report, dismissing it as an afterthought.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the National Commission, State Commission, and District Forum, remitting the matter to the District Forum for fresh adjudication. The District Forum was directed to decide the objection to the maintainability of the complaint and the issue of limitation, consider the Deputy Secretary's report, and give respondent No.1 an opportunity to reply. The parties were left to bear their own costs.