Thyagarajan
12 February 2013 at 22:12
Dear Experts,
As and when a citizen brings to notice of State Information Commission that a PIO who is supposed to give information on his petition did not do so., The SIC issues orders to PIO to do so. In case of continued silence sic asks PIO why penalty cannot be levied on him. If PIO’S pleading is not satisfactory the SIC orders penalty. Who pays for penalty and to whom it is given?
Rajneesh Madhok
16 November 2012 at 19:40
Whether Lok Adalat can not make directions to any department for the case filed in Lok Adalat,
*Whether the case filed before Lok Adalat has no right to make directions
As Food & Supplies Department, Punjab and Block Development & Panchayat officer had been violating their own policies in issue of Ration Card meant for Below Poverty Line i.e. Blue card issued by Punjab Government. The application under Lok Adalat filed at Phagwara Lok Adalat and the evidences with regard to the entitlement of the person who has been deprived of getting Ration card has been submitted with proofs. The lady whose family has been denied to issue the Ration Card meant for Below Poverty Line is a beggar and collect alms by door to door begging. Whether the beggar who collect alms by door to door begging can be issued Ration Card meant for Above Poverty Line. The Sarpanch has not attested her application for issuing ration card meant for Below Poverty Line. The repeated application submitted to Block Development and Panchayat Officer and Food & Civil Supplies Department as well as to Sarpanch of the Village. Both the concerned departments failed to heed the ear on the requests.
The Case filed before the Lok Adalat is lingering on from the last one year in the court. On the last hearing the Presiding Officer said that though both of the departments have not issued her the Ration Card meant for Below Poverty Line and both of the departments says that such Ration Cards are being issued as per the directions of the Central and State Governments, As now there is no such directions so the card will not be issued to that lady and her family.
CONSIDERABLE POINTS THAT THE PRESIDING OFFICER SAID IN LAST HEARING:
1. That the Lok Adalat can not make directions to any department for the case filed in Lok Adalat, we can amicably resolve the matter only.
2. Provide me the powers empowered to Lok Adalat in which the Presiding officer can make directions to the parties if the matter is not amicably resolved.
3. Tomorrow is the last date to decide in the matter and Presiding officer has given deadline that the case will be decided tomorrow if you fail to provide the rules that Lok Adalat has been empowered to make directions.
4. That under Lok Adalat the Presiding officer and the members have not empowered to make directions, THE PRESIDING OFFICER SAID THAT PERMANENT LOK ADALAT HAS BEEN EMPOWERED TO MAKE DIRECTIONS (WHICH IS DISTRICT BASED COURT). WILL ANY BODY WILL PROVIDE DETAILS WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOK ADALAT AND PERMANENT LOK ADALAT AND HOW THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATS ARE EMPOWERED TO MAKE DIRECTIONS AND LOK ADALTS ARE NOT EMPOWERED TO DIRECT TO THE CONCERNED DEPARTMENTS.
5. In the petition placed before the Presiding officer of Lok Adalat it has been proved that the departments have failed to comply with the rules set by their own departments. When it is proved that the violations to the rules have been made then whether the Lok Adalat is not empowered to direct the departments concerned to comply with the rules.
6. That when the representations, followed by legal notice and the written submission and arguments have been made and lastly the new funda that the Petitioners case is that though the Respondent authorities are violating their own policies but the directions can not be made to the Respondents, so in view of the above mentioned points the case will be disposed of and the beneficiary will be deprived of their rights. WHETHER IT IS NOT THE INFRINGEMENT OF LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC.
7. WHETHER WE CAN’T REQUEST TO THE LOK ADALAT AT THIS STAGE THAT KINDLY PROVIDE DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO TAKE COGNISANCE OF THE REPRESENTAION/ LEGAL NOTICE RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS AND REDRESS THEIR GRIEVANCES AIN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW/POLICY BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER WITHIN A STIPULATED PERIOD.
8. That the Opposite parties failed to produce before the court why not the Ration Card has been issued to the Deprived persons of the society.
9. Whether the Court has not been empowered to Issue any direction. Whether the Lok Adalat .
10. Whether the LOK Adalat can not decide on the matter of principles, and a public cause.
11. That the public knocked the door of the court to get justice if it is proved that there are violations of rules and if the officials are not following the rules framed by their department then whether the dispute arose and the matter should be disposed of without any directions in the matter.
12. Whether the citizens can be deprived of Food and Kerosene and other items due to No directions to issue fresh Ration card from more than 10 years by the State / Central Government.
13. IN BRIEF THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF FOOD GRAINS AND PROTECTIVE FOODS IN THE COUNTRY BUT THE ACCESS TO POOR ER SECTION OF SOCIETY TO FOOD, FOR WHICH THOSE POLICIES HAVE BEEN FRAMED UNDER PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AT THE SUBSIDIZED RATES TO ISSUE FOODGRAINS, PULSES, IILS, FUEL OIL (KEROSENE) ETC. THE FACT IS THAT IN REALITY THE MAJOR PART OF THESE COMMODITIES NEVER REACH THE TARGETED POPULATION AND THOSE ITEMS ARE BEING DIVERTED TO MARKETS BY POLITICIANS, BUREAUCRATS AND THEIR CRIMINAL SYDICATES. AND WHEN THE APPLICATION IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN PUT BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT, THE SAID COURT AFTER ONE YEAR OF CONTINUOUS HEARINGS NOT CONSIDERING THE REAL ASPECTS OF JUSTICE.
14. It is the corruption, diversion of Foodgrains and other essential commodities meant for the poor to the open market by the mafias, wastages and mismanagement of stocks that are adversely and very seriously affecting the supplies to the targeted beneficiaries.
15. When the guidelines have not been implemented then how the justice can be provided to the public.
Rajneesh Madhok,
B-xxx/63, Nehru Nagar,
St. No 2, Railway Road,
Phagwara-144401 (Pb)
Ph: 01824-262569 (O), 268210 (R), 094173-06415 (M)
Tele-fax: 01824-262569, E-mail: rmadhok_pgm@bsnl.in ; rajneesh_madhok@yahoo.com
Rajneesh Madhok
04 November 2011 at 22:25
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAPURTHALA
Complaint No. 53 of 2011
Date of Instt. 20.4.2011
Date of Decision: 14.9.2011
Rajneesh Madhok, B-xxx/63, Nehru Nagar, St. No. 2, Railway Road, Phagwara-144401 (Pb)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complainant
Versus
1. Sub Divisional Magistrate-Cum-Licensing Authority-Cum-Overall incharge of Suwidha Centre, Phagwara
2. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-overall incharge of Suwidha Centres in District, D.C. Office, Kapurthala.
3. The State Transport Commissioner (STC) O/o The State Transport Commissioner, Chandigarh.---------------------------------- Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINAT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986
Before: Shri Surinder Mohan President)
Sh. Parkash Singh Lamme (Member)
Smt. Shashi Narang (Member)
Present: Complainant in person,
Shri Harjit Singh administrative officer for opposite parties.
ORDER
Parkash Singh Lamme (Member)
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant applied for renewal of the driving licence to the SDM –Cum-Licensing Authority, Phagwara on 7/11/10 and sought information under Section 4 of RTI Act under Proactive Disclosure about the fee to be submitted with the application. As per prescribed norms of the opposite party department, complainant deposited fee of Rs 30/- with opposite party No. 1 but the concerned official of opposite party No. 1 refused to accept the same and demanded Rs 450/- as fee for renewal instead of prescribed fee of Rs 30/-. That accordingly complainant deposited Rs 450/= vide cash receipt on 8/10/2010. That opposite parties have charged over and above the prescribed fee regarding which no reason whatsoever has been given by the opposite parties till date. Thus the opposite parties have indulged in unfair trade practice against which the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed. Complaint is supported by an affidavit of complainant.
2. In reply it is pleaded that complainant applied for renewal of his driving licence in Form No. 7 and the other documents were completed by the concerned operator of Suwidha Centre. The complainant never requested the opposite parties to accept the fee of Rs 30/- required as per the norms prescribed by the department. In fact license of complainant was late for more than one year and he was to be charged the penalty for late submission of his driving license. In this manner fee was charged from the complainant as per Govt. law, rules and instructions. It is further pleaded that opposite parties are bound to charge the fee as prescribed by the Govt. from time to time which is being charged as per Govt. instructions. Hence there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In order to prove his case Ex. CA affidavit of complainat, Ex C1 application dated 9/11/10, ex C2 Copy of Form 7 dated 9/11/10, Ex. C3 snapshot of website for the fee. Ex C4 memo No. 322 dated 11/2/11, Ex. C5 grounds of appeal.
4. To rebut this evidence Ex. R1 Copy of rule 32 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 and Ex. R2 affidavit of Chaman Lal Sharma Clerk.
5. We have heard arguments of both the parties and perused the file very carefully,
6. The complainant argued that he has applied for renewal of driving licence to the SDM-cum-Licensing Authority, Phagwara on 7/11/10 in the Form 7 and the SDM-Cum-Licensing Authority directed him to deposit Rs 30/= in Suwidha Centre. At the Suwidha Centre, Mr. Ajay had thrown out application of the complainant and refused to accept the application. The concerned official demanded Rs 450/- as fee for renewal and complainant deposited the same and got the receipt of Rs 450/- whereas the prescribed fee of the department of Transport is Rs 30/-. The complainant approached the Deputy Commissioner who is overall incahrge of Suwidha Centre to supply copy of circular issued by the Department of Transport regarding the fee of Rs 450/- but he did not produce any circular in this regard. The charging of exorbitant rate of fee at the rate of 450/- in place of Rs 30/- is exploitation of consumer and unfair trade practice by the opposite parties.
Representatives of opposite parties argued that the fee for
The renewal of driving license has been taken from the complainant as per the law, rule and instructions issued by the Govt. There was no deficiency in service provided by the opposite parties to the complainant, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Suwidha Centres providing services to the general public, the fee taken from them were charged as per the government instructions and rules. Rs 450/- have been charged where the work is computerized and laminated as per the government instructions and rules for renewal of driving license. The detail of the fee collected by Suwidha Centre is as under:
i) Renewal of driving license fee Rs 250/-
ii) Late fee for 1 year Rs 150/-
iii) Late fee for subsequent year Rs 50/-
-----------
Total Rs 450/-
It is admitted that at some places where driving license are renewed manually, the fee of Rs 30/- is charged. The opposite parties argued that no extra fee is charged from the general public except the fee prescribed for each work as per instructions and rules issued by the government. The complainant has suppressed the fact that his license was submitted late for a period of more than one year and the penalty is to be charged as prescribed under the rules i.e. Rs 150/- for the 1st year and thereafter Rs 50/- for each subsequent year. Suwidha Centre charged Rs 450/- as per the instructions of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The claim of the complainant is unjust and illegal.
We have considered submissions of both the parties. We are of the opinion that fee charged from the complainant by Suwidha Centre is just and according to the government instructions and rules if renewed license is issued vide Smart Card. The work of renewal of driving license is involved by the computers in Form No. 7. Suwidha Centre has issued receipt No. B 64070168 dated 8/12/10 which was given to the complainant with the remarks that complainant may collect driving license after ten days from the delivery counter No. 1. The fee collected by Suwidha Centre from the complainant is as per the instructions issued by the Punjab Govt. for the renewal of driving license. The complainant has not attached the copy of Driving License with his complaint issued by the opposite party. Under Form No. 7 the opposite party has issued the Driving License to the complainant after considering his application under From No. 7 Rule 32 since No 8A as per Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989. The opposite party has rightly charged the fee and issued the Driving License to the complainant. Keeping in view of the above, we reject the complaint of the complainant.
Copies of order to be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules and file be consigned to record room.
Announced Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
14.9.2011 Member Member President
=====================================================================================
POINTS OF CONSIDERATION
1. http://punjabtransport.nic.in/html/licence.htm It is specifically mentioned in the website and the details provided alongwith exhibits that the Fees Rs 30/- is being paid because the Form No. 6 is not available on the website and in the market as well. If we consider the fees details as per website Rs 200/- should be charged for Renewal Fee as per attached website details.
2. There is no provision of Late fee charges according to the Website. So whether the decision could be made when on so many representations no document as evidence could be provided by the opposite parties.
3. If we consider that in Punjab The Central Motor vehicle Act is applicable then the rules framed by the Central Govt is that Rs 250/- can be collected with the cost of Smart card. The cost of computerized chip is Rs Two hundred rupees. The Smart card is like the ATM Card with unique features. The Licence provided to the consumer was on a simple paper. Till the last day of argument it was proved and admitted by the President and members that the exorbitant Fees has been charged
4. In central Vehicle rules the late fees of Rs 50/- can be charged on the annual basis but there is no provision in Punjab Govt or Central Govt Transport department rules that the fees can be charged @ Rs 150/- for first year. How the decision was made without considering the evidences submitted.
5. Under Department of Transport Punjab’s rules Rs 250/- can not be charged.
6. No circular no guidelines submitted by the opposite parties even then the decision is in favour of OP. YEH HAI INDIA. I LOVE MY INDIA.
Rajneesh Madhok
22 June 2011 at 19:23
Consumer Forum can not take cognizance of consumer complaint against BSNL? jurisdiction is barred?
It is mentioned that Apex Court has ruled "there is special remedy provided under Section 7(b) of Indian Telegarph Act regarding the disputes in respect of telephone bills,"
can somebody do some research and inform - What is this rule (section)? and what is the procedure?
==========================================
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, KAPURTHALA.
Complaint No. 61 of 2011
Date of Instt. ..11.05.2011
Date of Decision :..18.05.2011
Rajneesh Madhok, B-xxx/63, Nehru Nagar, St. No 2, Railway Road, Phagwara-144401 (Pb) 094173-06415 (M)
...............Complainant
Versus
1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, through its Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Telephone Exchange Building, Phagwara.
2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, through its General Manager, Telcom District CTO Complex, Jalandhar.
3. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, through its General Manager, Telephone Exchange Building, Room No. 1, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh-160022
---------------------------------------------------------- Respondents.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Shri Surinder Mohan (President)
Mrs. Shashi Narang (Member)
Present: Shri Rajneesh Madhok complainant in person.
ORDER
Surinder Mohan (President)
1. Heard, Complaint be registered. This order will decide the present complaint at preliminary stage. Rajneesh Madhok has filed the present complaint against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others on the grounds that the Broad Band Connection from Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Phagwara office was taken by him by depositing Rs 5515/-. Due to deficient service of service provider, the information regarding the deficiency in service of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited collected from department and it is proved tht the department could not provide proper service to the consumers. The Department provided misleading information on various points and the Refund sought on deficient service and amount charged under unfair trade practice not refunded as per the deposited amount and failed to provide any guidelines framed by the Department of Telecommunication. The complainat filed various representations about fault Broad Band connection and inflated bills, but the complainant failed to get justice. The representations were also made to different authorities to refund the amount illegally charged from the consumer, but the Department failed to settle the claim sought. The complainant spent Rs 3000/- towards collection of information which was not provided to the applicant and due to negligence of the BSNL, the complainant has to be present in Central Information Commission to get the sought information and again vague and misleading reply by dodging the complainant, the Broad Band was faulty due to OFC cable cutting by NHAI according to reply by opposite party No. 1. The document submitted with letter dated 24.2.2010 that 100 pair of OFC cable and 50 Pair of OFC damaged. Any manufacturer worldwide has never manufactured the said sizes of OFC cables. So the BSNL is dodging the consumers by giving vague and misleading reply. This is deficiency in Service. As per reply dated 2.3.2010, the misleading information provided that the fault was due to old Broad Band system of Phagwara. As the complainant's system is created unde new system as informed by Mr. Gurcharan Singh TTA while providing the connection. The misleading and vague reply is deficiency in service. The information provided by BSNL, D.E. (Phones) vide letter dated 9.4. 2010 has again deficiencies. That there is unfair trade practice on behalf of the opposite parties. A relief has been sought that the respondents are misleading the complainant and they be directed to refund full amount deposited with BSNL without any termination charges and service tax charges, that complainant may be compensated towards expenses met by him in getting misleading information, that complainant may be provided exemplary costs, Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for tension and mental physical agony. Further prayer has been made that opposite parties be directed to settle the claim of the complainant as per loss suffered and to pay the same with interest @ 12% per annum, to pay Rs 5000/- as litigation expenses, the complainant be compensated for the period of Broad Band connection failed to connect and amount charged under unfair trade practice by BSNL, to take action against the official with whose negligence, the consumer has to suffer an action may be directed to be initiated against officials those have provided vague and misleading information to the consumer.
2. We have heard complainant in person and have gone through the file. The complainant has sought number of reliefs from BSNL due to alleged deficiencies in services. He has also sought refund of Rs 5515/- and refund of full amount deposited with BSNL and amount for mental and physical agony as well as tension etc. The law has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case with the General Manager Telecom Versus M. Krishnan another reported as 2009 (8) SCC 481, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that there is special remedy provided under Section 7(b) of Indian Telegarph Act regarding he disputes in respect of telephone bills, then remedy under Consumer protection Act is by implication barred. The Hon'ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has also followed the Apex Court judgment referred above in a case with title as Bharti Cellular Limited Vs. Sudarshan Kumar in first appeal No. 668 of 2005, decided on 24.2.2011. Similarly, the Hon'ble Chandigarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal No. 671 of 2009 decided on 29.1.2010 with the title Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. Sunil Kumar has also followed the above said Apex Court Authority. Hon'ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has also followed the above said authority in first appeal No. 642 of 2009 decided on 29.12.2010 with the title Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. Jagdish Lal. All these authorities were related to private telecommunication companies. The Hon'ble Apex Court has given its verdict in the case of Government Agency. Therefore, we are of the view that this Forum can not take cognizance of the complaint as the jurisdiction is barred. Therefore, the complaint is ordered to be returned. The complainant may file appropriate application for appointment of an arbitrator. The complaint be returned against a proper receipt. Photostat copies of complaint and its documents attached with the complaint be retained. Original documents be returned. Copy of the order be communicated to the complainant free of costs. Photostat papers retained by this forum be consigned to the record room.
Dated: Sd/- Sd/-
18.5.2011 Member Member
Certified to be a true copy
Raman Sharda
Superintendent,
Distt. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Kapurthala 20/6/2011
Rubber Stamp put on order:
1. Case No. 61/2011
Date of Disposal 18/05/2011
Date of issued of Free Copy 20/6/2011
Party's name Applicant/ Respondent: Complainat
Order sent by Post/ hand : By Regd Post.
Date of issue of duplicate copy---------
Sr. No. 299 Dt 20/6/2011
Sd/-
Signature with date.
===========================================
Rajneesh Madhok
27 May 2011 at 21:08
Poor girl became victim of extortion from School management. One School extorted fees for two years and one school for half year. The certificate provided by one school about passing of +1 exam is useless. She paid for two and half years fees, Bus fees and addition to it the charges for extra coaching. The school extorted money and provided forged document of passing of 10+1 class which is useless. Now she is running from pillar to post to get justice but in vain.
The representations to the authorities have also been made
As
Complaint U/S 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 for For defrauding and forgery. But no action has been taken so far.
Kindly suggest the way out.
Regards,
Rajneesh Madhok
----- Original Message -----
From: rajneesh madhok
To: chmn-cbse@nic.in ; secy-cbse@nic.in ; mcsharma.cbse@nic.in ; ropanchkula.cbse@nic.in ; vipsphagwara@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 11:20 PM
Subject: Complaint U/S 15 of Right to Education Act, 2009; School not issuing Transfer Certificate and refund fees collected on illegal parameters
Phagwara: Date May 23, 2011
1. The Chairman &Chief Vigilance Officer Mr. Vineet Joshi, IAS Tel. 91-11-22023737, 22467263
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
SHIKSHA KENDRA, 2 COMMUNITY CENTRE
PREET VIHAR, DELHI- 110092
2. Affiliation, Administration and Scholarship Matters
Dr (Mrs) Veera Gupta
Secretary Tel. 91-11-22549627, 22549628
Email: secy-cbse@nic.in
3. Examination Matters M C Sharma,
Controller of Examination
Tel. 91-11-22515828
Email: mcsharma.cbse@nic.in
4. CBSE - REGIONAL OFFICE, DELHI
PS 1-2, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, I.P. EXTN., PATPARGANJ, DELHI - 110 090, Tel: 91-11-22239177-80, Fax: 22248883
Email: chmn-cbse@nic.in
5. Regional Office
Central Board of Secondary Education, Sector- 5 , Panchkula - 134109 (Haryana)
Haryana,U.T.of Chandigarh, Punjab, J&K, Himachal Pradesh.
Tel: 91-172-2585163/2585193
Fax:91-172-2585193
ropanchkula.cbse@nic.in
6. The Director General School Education,
Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan,
SCO-162-164, Sec-34 A,
Chandigarh.
7. Victoria International Public School,---------Respondent
VPO Chachoki ,G.T. Road,
Phagwara-144401 (Pb)
Ph: 01824-261744, 223821, 223824, Fax: 01824-223821, E-mail: vipsphagwara@gmail.com;
8. Kamla Nehru College for women,
Plahi Road,
Phagwara
Subject::
· COMPLAINT UNDER SCHEDULE 15 OF THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION ACT, 2009. UNDER THE ACT NO CHILD SHOULD DISCONTINUE EDUCATION BECAUSE OF DELAY IN ISSUING THE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE.
· STUDENT WANT TO TAKE ADMISSION IN PUNJAB SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD SCHOOL BUT SCHOOL NOT ISSUING TRANSFER CERTIFICATE.
· RIGHT TO EDUCATION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT BUT SCHOOL IS DEPRIVING STUDENT FROM HER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
1. Complaint against Victoria International Public School regarding Non-issuance of School Leaving Certificate / Transfer Certificate & extorted fees for two years on illegal parameters.
2. Due to delay in issuance of Transfer Certificate Student will lose this academic year also.
3. New School from which the student wants to apply not admitting without Transfer Certificate from School in which she studied earlier.
4. As per State Department of Public instructions guidelines the schools should not delay the TC-issuing process. Even if the student requests for a TC in the middle of the academic year. The school should consider it as an emergency and issue the TC immediately.
5. If the negligence in issuing the TC, the Principals of both schools, that is from where the TC is needed and the school that the child wants to join will be held responsible.
R/Sirs,
It is humbly submitted that the complainant is a resident of V &P.O. Dhesian Kahna Tehsil Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar. Hence is competent to invoke the right of life and liberty.
I am fighting struggling to get justice and there is high scale violation of the human rights from Victoria Internation Public School, G.T. Road, Phagwara. The under mentioned details are the proof of continuous harassment. The facts of the case are as following.
1. That the complainant has been the student of said Victoria International Public School, Phagwara and appeared in March 2009 vide Roll No. 2188271 in 10th class through that school in CBSE, Secondary School Examination 2009 and got compartments in Mathematics and English Comm Papers.-- Annexure Page 1
2. That the student was admitted to the next class by Victoria international public School in +1 from April 2009 and collected fees and other charges from the student.
3. That the student appeared in Aug 2009 in one subject of Maths whereas the school collected examination fees from the student for appearing in two subjects. As English language subject was not compulsory to clear so the school collected Examination fees for two subjects but sent fees for one subject to CBSE.
4. That in Aug 2009 exam conducted by CBSE the student could not qualify in the said paper of Maths.
5. That in March 2010 the student cleared the exam of Secondary Education vide Roll No. 2175660 and the certificate of Pass issued on 28-05-2010 but the said certificate has not been delivered to the student. –Annexure Page 2.
6. That the student keep on visiting the office of school to get the result card, one day the school directed her to visit office of CBSE, Panchkula to get the result card. On numerous visits she was told that her certificate will be sent to her home address.
7. The Certificate issued by CBSE certifying that the student has qualified the Secondary School Examination of the board held in March, 2010. –Annexure –Page-3-
8. That the Regional office Central Board of Secondary Education, Sector 5, Panchkula (Haryana) sent the Result card which was delivered to student on 4th Jan 2011. Annexure Page 4 with postal stamps of delivery of document.
9. That on the basis of compartment candidate the student got admission in Kamla Nehru College for Women, Phagwara in +1 class in April 2010.
10. That as the result of compartments in Maths and English was declared in May 2009 which the student could not qualify. The student was directed to visit to Victoria International Public School by Kamla Nehru College for women to file examination form to Reappear in 10th Class.
11. That on visit to Victoria International Public School the school management forced the student to get admission in their school if she wants to get her forms filled up for appearance in exam. The admission in the School was given in Mid session and the student has to pay fees for complete session to Victoria International Public School, Phagwara and half session to Kamla Nehru Public School, Phagwara.
12. That in March 2010 the student passed +1 exam conducted by Victoria International Public School, Phagwara and the result declared vide Admission No. 1825 declared by School. Annexure Page –5 to 7.
13. That on passing the said exam the student got admitted in +2 class in April 2010. As the result card of 10th Class has not been in the possession of the candidate the candidate had been harassed to bring the said card from CBSE to appear in +2 exam.
14. That on visit to CBSE office at Panchkula the student was told that she can not appear in +2 exam in this session as she has passed 10th Class exam in 2010 as per record and there should be a gap of one year in appearance in +2 exam. But the Principal, Victoria Interantional Public School who has collected fees for 10+2 Admission fees, Tuition fees and examination fees of Rs 600=00 do not admit the instruction of CBSE says that the student can appear in 10+2 class of CBSE.
RELIEF SOUGHT:
1. Victoria International Public School, Phagwara refused to give School-Leaving Certificate/ Transfer Certificate AND NOT REFUNDING This is UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES. Kindly direct the school to issue School-Leaving Certificate / Transfer Certificate as the said school has withheld the Transfer Certificate on flimsy grounds and refund the fees collected from the student for the current session and past session.
2. No dues certificate and Transfer Certificate kindly be issued immediately.
3. Harassment casued to student and parents kindly be duly compensated with Rs 1,00,000.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Raman Deep Kaur,
VPO Dhesian Kahna,
Tehsil Phillaur,
Distt. Jalandhar Punjab,
Pin: 141311
Ph: 01826-270096, 98147-004493
Through: Rajneesh Madhok,
B-xxx/63, Nehru Nagar,
St. No. 2, Railway Road,
Phagwara-144401 (Pb)
Ph: 01824-262569 (O), 268210 (R), 094173-06415 (M)
Tele-fax: 01824-262569, E-mail: rmadhok_pgm@bsnl.in; rajneesh_madhok@yahoo.com
Rajneesh Madhok
18 May 2011 at 21:17
Sir,
I appeared before the Consumer Court, Kapurthala in one of my case. Today I got a very strange experience. The matter was agaisnt BSNL and was lingering on since long. In this connection I filed the application under RTI Act to know the status of my application. Today was the hearing, Previously the Superintendent provided me the Reply to my application.
And afterwards was the hearing. In the last hearing I had shown all documents that the Broad band was faulty and the representations had been made to the authorities several times including the reply made by them. The reply was again misleading which is deficiency in service.
On last hearing the full case has been heard by the President and the member,. and the next date of hearing was fixed for today. Sir, the matter of consideration is. The amount charged by the O.P. was also tallied as per my application:
Whether my complaint has not been admitted? If not then why not the decision has been made on the last hearing. Today was the 4th hearing. First the date was given for Preliminary hearing.
Second time it was postponed due to non completion of quorum.
Third time the hearing was conducted and the matter has been put before the forum. But no direction regarding issue of notices to the Opposite parties had been made.
Today in hearing the President told that the decision will be sent to me in a week.
Whether my application has not been admitted.
CONSUMER COURT CASE
Whether the decision can be made without issuing notices to the opposite parties.
Without issuing notices, we can't say that it is Ex-parte decision.
I hope there is no provision of decision without hearing the opposite party.
In your opinion what will be the matter. Whether the complaint has been admitted or not. If it is not admitted then why the subsequent hearing dates had been given.
Whether the consumer forum can decide the case on the basis of merits without issuing notices to O.P. (Reespondents)
Kindly suggest the next course of action.
Rajneesh Madhok,
B-xxx/63, Nehru Nagar, St. No. 2, Railway Road, Phagwara.
Advocate Suresh Kumar T V
12 May 2011 at 18:01
Now a days the Hon'ble State Consumer Readdressal Commission, Chennai and District Consumer Forum, Chennai are not entertaining new complaints against the Mobile Service Providers by relying the Hon'ble Supreme Court case General Manager, Telecom, versus M Krishnan.
According to my view, this judgement will not be applicable to the private mobile service providers in terms of TRAI Act 1997. Further the judgement in the case of Lakhbir Singh,the DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR has clearly distinguished the applicability of the said supreme court judgement.
On account of the State Commission and District Forums orders rejecting the complaint, there are so many consumers are handcuffed and handicapped to fight their rights as a consumer.
Therefore I have decided to challenge the said consumer courts order by way of Civil Revision Petition before Hon'ble High Court Madras under Art.227 of Constitution of India on the ground that the State Commission and District Forum are failed to exercise jurisdiction and flagrant violation of law.
I Invite the vies from the members about the scope of the said revision petition
Thanks & Regards
T.V.Suresh Kumar
Advocate
Rajneesh Madhok
20 April 2011 at 22:10
To April 20, 2011
http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcCauselist/causelist/1245causelistPunjabKapurthala2011-04-20.html
The Hon’ble President,
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Kapurthala.
SUB: ATTENDED TWO HEARINGS BUT NAME NOT IN CAUSE LISTS AND NO DETAILS OF FURTHER ADJOURNMENTS.
Sir,
I attended hearings twice before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum but all the two hearings have not been mentioned in the cause list. I request to the Hon’ble Registrar to upload the specific information regarding cause list and other matters of decision and adjournments of hearing with reference for reasonable cause.
Details Appellant Respondent Date of hearing Attended before Decision
Attendance marked. Rajneesh madhokCase No. 305/4-4-11Rajneesh Madhok Vs Suwidha Centre SDM Cum Licencing Authority Cum overall incharge of Suwidha Centre, Phagwara and ors. First hearing attended on 15th April 2011 Hon’ble Madam Smt. Shashi Naranag Adjourned to 20th due to non completion of quorum for hearing (one-third member was present.
Attendance not marked Rajneesh madhok Vs Suwidha Centre SDM cum Licencing Authority & ors. Second hearing attended on 20th April 2011 Before Hon’ble President and member Petition admitted, notices are to be served.
Attendance marked Phool Bahar W/o Sh. Ved Parkash. Case No. 306/4-4-11 Block Development & Panchayat officer Phagwara & ors First hearing attended on 15th April 2011 Before Hon’ble member Smt. Shashi Narang Adjourned due to Non completion of quorum for hearing (one-third member was present)
Attendance not marked Phool Bahar W/o Sh. Ved Parkash Block Dev & Panchayat officer & ors Second hearing attended on 20th April 2011 Before Hon’ble President & member Petition admitted, notices are to be served.
No Name entered in cause list No Evidence of hearing attended. No name entered in cause list Attendance not marked
Cause List tagged on the entry gate of the Forum Different from the cause list uploaded. No entry of name in cause list uploaded Name entered in the cause list at the entry gate
Cause of action Not mentioned Not in record Details should be uploaded.
Sir,
I the petitioner and Authorised Representative in one case approached this court by filing petitions under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and got the dates of hearing by post and to confirm the date of hearings, there is no mention in the cause list of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala. The Cause list tagged at the entrance of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala and uploaded on website are different. I submit as under:
1. In the absence of the said information the Petitioner/ Complainant in spite of serving of notice may be doubtful for the date of hearing.
2. On record there is no details/ Reference about two hearings attended by the Complainant/ Authorised Representative.
3. No details of admission of application, Rejection of application and on search by name there is no access to the particular information if feeded by name.
4. Kindly upload the requisite information for the convenience of the public which is mandatory under Proactive Disclosure under Right to information Act, 2005.
5. As the cases are pending in the consumer court, the remedy to seek relief from higher courts only be sought with the provision of appropriate record. In the absence of above mentioned record the further remedy can not be sought.
6. Kindly make instructions for effective functioning of the consumer forum. In the absence of proper record the appellant can not approach to the High Court or The State Information Commission to seek directions in these cases.
7. In absence of the above Proactive Disclosures of Hearings and Cause lists the complainant can not approach the National Commission at Delhi for directions.
8. The time bound relief that the consumer forum has to function and the cases should be disposed off expeditiously can not be considered in the absence of cause lists.
Kindly upload the above mentioned information on the website for the convenience of the complainants and respondents.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Rajneesh Madhok,
B-xxx/63, Nehru nagar,
St. No. 2, Railway Road,
Phagwara-144401 (Pb)
Ph: 01824-262569 (O), 268210 (R) 094173-06415 (M)
Tele-fax: 01824-262569, E-mail: rmadhok_pgm@bsnl.in; rajneesh_madhok@yahoo.com
=========================================
Kindly suggest what should be done when there is no entry in the cause list of hearings of consumer Disputes redressal forum, kapurthala, Punjab
Anonymous
26 February 2011 at 10:18
DEar All Experts,
One of my friend used Prepaid Airtel sim No. last 7 years, 2months before he could not give address proof as per airtel request, so after one week ago they were suddenly disconnected the connection, after contact the local authorized service center, that time they asked some address proof and id proof, and letter also provided, after one month they gave the dublicate sim but not activated the same number last week, mean time where sent the mail to nodal office also they told that soonly your number will activated,but not activated,but 3 days before the number has been activated, we tried to that number unexpected some one pickuped out call then we were asked to that person he told that i am newly connected and buy this number, now can i go to consumer forum for cheating and mutated of my number, i have all mail transaction and dublicate sim also, kindly advice me if i suit file a case to the consumer forum, can i win the case?
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
What is meant by rc/ad
As per the order by the Hon'ble Court: Sh. Rajnesh Madhok, Adv. filed POA and W/Statement on behalf of deft.no.1. Fresh notice to deft.no.2 and 3 issued on filing of RC/AD
Now the query is that:
Does RC/Ad is Registered Cover with Acknowledgement due.