9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Certificate issued by the appellant, the date of birth of respondent No.1 was shown as 10.05.1964. However, in the matriculation certificate his date of birth came to be recorded as 10.05.1961. Upon receipt of the matriculation certificate, respondent No.1 contacted Headmaster of the school (respondent No.2) who is said to have assured him that he will write to the appellant for making necessary correction. Thereafter, respondent No.1 met the concerned officers of the appellant and handed over the matriculation certificate and letter written by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is said to have written another letter dated 19.8.1998 to the appellant for making necessary correction in the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate of respondent No.1, but without any result. On its part, the appellant is said to have sent 2-3 communications to respondent No.2 between 1988 and 1991 requiring him to furnish the admission register and copy of the cancelled transfer certificate for the purpose of verification of the date of birth of respondent No.1 but the latter did not respond. On 30.6.1992, the appellant returned original certificate of respondent No.1 without making co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apart from the cost of ₹ 1,000. 8. After the decision of the District Forum, Deputy Secretary of the Board conducted an inquiry to verify the correct date of birth of respondent No.1 and submitted report dated 31.10.1995 to the Secretary of the Board with the finding that respondent No.1 had taken admission in Class X at Hubback High School, Udayagiri on the basis of fake transfer certificate which was issued in favour of Santosh Kumar Pradhan s/o Appa Rao Pradhan of Sujeli, G. Udayagiri, who had studied upto IX Class at Government High School Balliguda. The conclusion recorded by Deputy Secretary of the Board reads as under: From the annexure 4 1 it is ascertained that TC No.63/24.6.78 had been issued in favour of Santosh Kumar Pradhan, S/o. Appa Rao Pradhan of Sujeli, G. Udayagiri in class IX from Govt. High School, Balliguda, whereas Annexure-2 reveals that Santosh Kumar Sahoo, S/o. Appa Rao Sahu of Sujeli, G. Udayagir was admitted at Hubback High Schoo, G. Udayagiri on 14.7.78 in class X which totally differs from Annexure-4 1. It clearly indicates that Santosh Kumar Sahoo, S/o. Appa Rao Sahoo who took admission vide TC No.63/ dt.24.6.78 of Govt. High S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ahoo could not have taken admission. The circumstances under which the admission was made and the complainant took admission in the said school is mysterious. A copy of the report furnished by the Deputy Secretary of Berhampur Zone is annexed hereto as Annexure-B. 10. The State Commission did not advert to the report of the Deputy Secretary and dismissed the appeal by observing that respondent No.1 had been subjected to unwarranted harassment. The State Commission also enhanced the compensation awarded by the District Forum from ₹ 10,000 to ₹ 20,000 so far as the appellant is concerned and from ₹ 2,000 to ₹ 5,000 qua respondent No.2. 11. The National Commission overruled the objection taken by the appellant that the complaint filed by respondent No.1 was not maintainable by observing that the counsel who appeared on its behalf before the District Forum had agreed for disposal of the complaint on merits. The National Commission rejected the report of the Deputy Secretary by making the following observations: Counsel for the petitioner then referred to a Report of the Deputy Secretary of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa to contend that Tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng letters to the appellant for making correction in his recorded date of birth and argued that the failure of the appellant to carry out necessary correction was per se illegal and unjustified necessitating an order to this effect by the District Forum which was affirmed and upheld by the State Commission and the National Commission. 13. We have considered the respective submissions. In our view, the impugned order is liable to be set aside because all the consumer forums failed to consider the issue of maintainability of the complaint in a correct perspective. Before the District Forum could go into the issue of correctness of the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate of respondent No.1, it ought to have considered whether the so called failure of the appellant to make correction in terms of the prayer made by respondent No.1 amounted to deficiency of service. The District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission also overlooked that despite repeated communications sent to him, respondent No.2 did not produce the original documents including the admission register so as to enable the appellant to verify the correctness and genuineness of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
