1. Briefly, Ch. Bashir Ahmad got admitted his son, Fahad Bashir (the claimant) in class six of Mian Nazeer Hussain Model School Jaranwala, which was accredoted with Mian Shamim Anwar Educational Complex Jaranwala Hussain Sugar Mills Ltd Jaranwala District Faisalabad. The claimant took 9th class examination held under the auspices of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Faisalabad from the said school and passed it when he was promoted to 10th class. The claimant met an accident in July 2008, therefore, he could not attend the school, hence, his name was struck out from the school rolls. However, on producing the relevant record of accident, the Headmistress, (the defendant No. 1) admitted the claimant under roll No. 228 in the said school on recovery of full fee. The defendant No. 1 also recovered his school fee up to the month of January 09, and the entry fee for examination of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Faisalabad. However, in the month February 09, it was disclosed to the astonishment of the claimant that his entry fee for examination of Board has not been deposited in the said Board.
The claimant contacted the defendant No. 1 to redress the grievances but in vain, hence, after delivery of legal notice under section 28 (1) of PCPA 2005, the claimant has lodged this claim under section 25 ibid for recovery of Rs. 532330/- as compensation/damages, school/entry fee, legal expenses etc.
2. The defendants have vehemently contested the above said claim by filing their statement of defence, interalia, on the grounds that the claimant is defaulter in payment of school fee for the month of December to February, that the claimant's attendance was short being 21% and that the claimant got (F Grade) in the school entry test for sending his admission in the Board, that the defendants insisted that the claimant might take examination of the Board in supplementary examinations but he took the examination as private candidate at his own, that, therefore, the claim is not maintainable.
3. In support of his version the claimant and his father Ch. Bashir Ahmad have submitted their affidavits whereas the claimant has also tendered the Bank Challan receipt No. 18684 dated 07.02.09, tuition fee receipts Nos. 2397, 4835 of Mian Shamim Anwar Educational Complex Jaranwala for the months of June to December, medical certificate of the claimant dated 27.07.08, certificate of counsel's fee dated 13.04.09, copy of legal notice dated 05.03.09, copy of memo No. 4925/CC dated 29.05.09, copy of complaint in writing addressed to the Executive District Officer Education Faisalabad.
4. The defendants have submitted the counter affidavits of Munir Ahmad Malik Administrator Mian Shamim Anwar Educational Complex Jaranwala and Fozia Abbas w/o Malik Muhammad Abbas (the defendant No. 1).
5. As the cross examination of the witnesses, produced by the parties, through their affidavits before the forum under the PCPA 2005, is not a rule but only an exception as it is merely the question of veracity of the statements made by the witnesses therefore, cross examination was not permitted as if cross examination of the witnesses is to be permitted in every case the whole objective of any difference of law would have been defeated and there would have been hardly any difference between the proceedings before consumer forum and a Civil Court. It therefore, did not appeal to reason that when PCPA 2005, permits evidence to be led by affidavits, right of cross examination might be resorted. That is why that soon after submission of affidavits by claimant and the counter affidavits in rebuttal thereof, on production of documents, I have heard the arguments in this case at length and have perused and scanned the record carefully and in estimably.
6. Prior to reach a safe conclusion in this case it would be pertinent to have a glance on the evidence on record so as to interpret it critically as under;
7. From the affidavits sworn by the claimant, Fahad Bashir and his father, Ch. Bashir Ahmad it transpires that the claimant was student of Mian Nazeer Hussain Model School Jaranwala under Mian Anwar Education Complex Jaranwala District Faisalabad from the 6th class, that the claimant took the 9th class examination under the auspices of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Faisalabad and promoted to 10th class, but that, unfortunately, the claimant met an accident in July 2008, hence, he could not attend the school but his name was struck off from the school rolls due to personal grudge despite that the claimant submitted the leave application in time in the school, that the claimant was readmitted on payment of school fee and admission fee under roll No. 228 but his name was not referred to the Board for his enrolment to take the Matriculate Examination that, hence, after delivery of legal notice, this claim has been lodged as a final resort. There is sufficient documentary evidence in the shape of school receipts showing that the tuition fee for the whole educational year of 10th class has been received by the school functionaries but that he was not permitted to take the Board Examination as is also manifest from para No. 4 of the counter affidavit.
8. In the affidavits submitted by the defendants, the claim has been contested on two fold grounds as under; a. That the attendance of the claimant was short as this attendance as per school record was 21% but 75% attendance was required under the Board rules under notification dated 08.08.09 for appearance in Board's Examination; b. That the claimant did not qualify the entry test of school as he obtained F-Grade in it;
9. However, the above said contentions of the defendants are not sustainable because no documentary proof have been submitted in support there of, despite that such record was available with them. Therefore, it is presumed that if such record would have been produced, the same would have gone against the defendants. The offer of the defendants to the claimant to send his admission in the Board Examination vide para No. 6 on facts of the written statement is self negation to their stand of contentions. Also there is no legal value of the entry test for denial to the claimant to take Board Examination hence, I am fortified to repel both the above said contentions of the defendants.
10. From the above said facts and circumstances, it is crystal clear that the services as rendered by the defendants to the claimant are faulty and defective as imparting of education is covered under the definition of "service" as provided under section 2 of the "Act" as also because the services being rendered by the school are with consideration and not free of charge and when such definition of "service" is read with the term "deficiency" it means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, and inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance. In the instant case, the manner in which the school acted in refusing the claimant to take Board Examination was highly undesirable and deplorable, hence, such "service" suffers from deficiency within the meaning of above said section of the "Act". The officers employed by the opposite party should keep it in mind that they are dealing with career of students and slight inadvertence on their part has the effect on destroying such career. Absence of care and caution was a deficiency in "service" attracting the liabilities under the "Act".
11. The up shot of the above whole discussion is that the claim is hereby accepted. Accordingly, the defendants shall now return the school fee/admission fee Rs. 10100/- the Board's admission fee Rs.
3330/- and legal fee Rs. 10000/- total Rs. 22430/- to the claimant within a period of 30 days otherwise the defendants shall be dealt with under section 32(2) of PCPA 2005. File be consigned to the record room after its due completions.