IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4967  OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13872 of 2009)

 Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa …..Appellant

Versus

Santosh Kumar Sahoo and another ….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

G.S. Singhvi,  J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Whether the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Phulbani  

(for short, ‘the District Forum’) 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 and whether the National Consumer  

Disputes  Redressal  Commission  (for  short,  ‘the  National  Commission’)  

committed  an  error  by  refusing  to  consider  report  dated  31.10.1995

submitted  by  Deputy  Secretary  of  the  appellant  Board  on  the  issue  of  

eligibility  of  respondent  No.1 to  take supplementary examination  are  the  

questions which arise for consideration in this appeal.  

3. Respondent  No.1  appeared  in  the  supplementary  examination  

conducted  by  the  appellant  in  1983  as  an  Ex-student  of  G.  Udayagiri  

Hubback High School.  In the Admission Card and Provisional 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  

2

respondent No.1 but the latter did not respond.  On 30.6.1992, the appellant  

returned original certificate of respondent No.1 without making correction  

and directed respondent No.2 to submit the relevant records at the certificate  

distribution camp for checking the date of birth of respondent No.1.  

4. After 12 years of his appearing in the examination and more than 3  

years  of  the  return  of  original  certificate  to  respondent  No.2,  respondent  

No.1 filed complaint  under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  

(for short, ‘the Act’) for issue of a direction to the appellant to correct his  

date  of  birth  recorded  in  the  matriculation  certificate  and  also  pay  

compensation for mental  and physical  agony and loss of his employment  

prospects by claiming that he was a consumer and there was deficiency of  

service  on  the  appellant’s  part.   Respondent  No.1  pleaded  that  he  had  

suffered incalculable loss because his candidature was rejected by various  

recruiting agencies/authorities on the ground of non-production of original  

matriculation certificate.  

5. In the counter  filed on behalf  of  the appellant,  it  was averred that  

instructions  were  issued  to  respondent  No.2  vide  letter  No.7279  dated  

27.11.1988 to attend document distribution centre at Phulbani but he did not  

comply  with  the  same.   It  was  further  averred  that  vide  letter  dated  

3

27.07.1989 respondent No.2 was asked to submit the admission register for  

the purpose of verification of the exact date of birth of respondent No.1 but  

he did not do the needful and did not attend the camp organized for the  

purpose of checking the original documents.  According to the appellant, the  

same  story  was  repeated  when  the  camp  was  held  in  July  1992  in  the  

premises of Balliguda High School and AJO High School, Phulbani.  

6. In  his  counter,  respondent  No.2  shifted  the  entire  blame  on  the  

appellant  by  stating  that  he  had  forwarded  the  original  certificate  for  

correction of the date of birth along with the relevant papers but necessary  

action was not taken by the appellant.   Respondent No.2 also denied the  

receipt of the communications sent by the appellant.  

7. By  an  order  dated  15.09.1995,  the  District  Forum  allowed  the  

complaint  and  directed  the  appellant  and  respondent  No.2  to  carry  out  

necessary  correction  in  the  date  of  birth  recorded  in  the  matriculation  

certificate of respondent No.1 and issue revised certificate within 45 days.  

The District  Forum also  awarded  compensation of  Rs.10,000 against  the  

appellant  and  Rs.2,000  against  respondent  No.2  apart  from  the  cost  of  

Rs.1,000.  

4

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 School, Balliguda is a forged candidate at Hubback High  School, G. Udayagiri on 14.7.78 is a forged candidate.  

Further  Santosh  Kumar  Pradhan was  issued  TC in  class  IX,  where  as  Santosh  Kumar  Sahoo  took  admission  at  Hubback  High School, G. Udayagiri in Class IX.

So,  the admission of  Santosh Kumar Sahu at  Hubback High  School, G. Udayagiri is completely illegal and forged and so,  the  original  pass  certificate  issued  to  him  may  please  be  cancelled and necessary steps in the matter please be taken.

5

Further  as  ascertained  Prafulla  Kumar  Das,  in-charge  headmaster,  issued TC at  Govt.  High School,  Balliguda vide  TC No. 63/24.6.78 on the basis of which Santosh Kumar Sahu  took  admission  at  G.  Udayagiri.   So  necessary  disciplinary  measures please be taken against Sir P.K. Das under intimation  to higher authorities.”

9. In  the  appeal  filed  against  the  order  of  the  District  Forum,  the  

appellant made specific mention of the enquiry report and pleaded that in  

view  of  the  finding  recorded  by  the  Deputy  Secretary  that  the  very  

admission of respondent No.1 was based on a fake document, his prayer for  

correction of the recorded date of birth should be rejected.  This is clearly  

borne out from paragraph ‘g’ of the memo of appeal, which is reproduced  

below:

“g) For that in absence of a finding by the learned Forum below  that the real date of birth of the complainant-respondent No.1  was  10.5.1964  and  not  10.5.1961,  the  finding  that  the  complainant suffered for non-correction of the said certificate is  illegal and arbitrary and thus liable to be set aside.  

     It  may incidently  been mentioned  that  in  view of  the  controversy, the Secretary of the Board requested the Deputy  Secretary  of  the  Berhampur  Zone  for  conducting  a  thorough  enquiry in the matter and find out the  truth or otherwise with  regard to the exact date of birth of the complainant.  In course  of enquiry made by the Deputy Secretary many interesting facts  have come to the light which is felt necessary to be brought the  notice  of  the  Hon.  Commission.   It  is  found  from the  spot  enquiry that:  

a)     It is revealed from the T.C. No.63 dated 24.6.1978  that  it  has  been  issued  in  favour  of  Santosh  Kumar  

6

Pradhan S/o. Aprarao, Pradhan of Sujeli in Class-IX from  Govt. Boys High School, G. Udayagiri on 14.7.1978 in  Class-X.  On the basis of the T.C. issued to one Santosh  Kumar Pradhan, one Satosh Kumar Sahoo 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 Rs.10,000  

to  Rs.20,000  so  far  as  the  appellant  is  concerned  and  from Rs.2,000  to  

Rs.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 Transfer Certificate No.63 dated 24.06.1971 had  been issued in favour of one Santosh Kumar Pradhan s/o Appa  Rao  Pradhan  of  Sujeli  in  G.  Udayagiri  in  Class  IX  from  

7

Government  High  School  Balliguda  whereas  the  respondent/  complainant is  Santosh Kumar Sahoo s/o Appa Rao Sahu of  Sujeli was admitted in  Hubback High School, G. Udayagiri on  14.07.1978.  According to him, the respondent got admission in  Hubback High School, G. Udayagiri fraudulently on the basis  of the Transfer Certificate issued to Santosh Kumar Pradhan.  This report is of the year 1995. No such defense was taken by  the petitioner-Board in its written statement. Petitioner cannot  be permitted to plead a new fact, which was not taken by it  either in the written statement or before the District Forum or  before the State Commission.  Moreover, as stated above, this is  a Report of 1995 whereas the original certificate was issued in  the year 1985.  This seems to be clearly an afterthought to cover  up  deficiency  committed  by  the  petitioner  in  showing  an  incorrect date of birth of the respondent, which has resulted in  miscarriage of justice.”

12. Learned counsel  for the appellant  assailed the  impugned order  and  

argued  that  the  complaint  filed  by  respondent  No.1  should  have  been  

dismissed at the threshold because there was no deficiency of service on the  

appellant’s part.   He further argued that the complaint filed in 1999 with the  

prayer for issue of a direction to the appellant to correct the date of birth  

recorded  in  the  matriculation  certificate  issued  in  1983  was  hopelessly  

barred by time and the District Forum committed a jurisdictional error by  

entertaining  the  same and  granting  relief  to  respondent  No.1.    Learned  

counsel then referred to the report submitted by the Deputy Secretary of the  

Board to show that respondent No.1 had secured admission by playing fraud  

and  argued  that  the  State  Commission  and  the  National  Commission  

committed serious error by ignoring the findings recorded by the Deputy  

8

Secretary  on  the  issue  of  entitlement  of  respondent  No.1  to  take  the  

supplementary examination.  Learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued  

that  the  District  Forum  did  not  commit  any  error  by  entertaining  the  

complaint because the appellant was guilty of gross deficiency of service.  

Learned counsel laid considerable emphasis on the fact that respondent No.2  

had  supported  the  cause  of  respondent  No.1  by  writing  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  

9

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 assertions made by  

respondent No.1 regarding his correct date of birth.  In our view, the District  

Forum should have taken cognizance of  the  communications  sent  by the  

appellant to respondent No.2 requiring him to produce the original records  

and called upon him to explain his position in the backdrop of the fact that  

on the one hand, he was writing letters to the appellant for correcting the  

date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate of respondent No.1 and,  

on the other hand, he resolutely avoided production of the original records.  

The report  of the Deputy Secretary substantially aggravates the suspicion  

that respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 were hand in gloves in allowing  

the  former  to  take  the  supplementary  examination  on  the  basis  of  the  

documents which belonged to someone else.   In the memo of appeal filed  

against the order of the District Forum, the appellant has made a specific  

mention of  the report  of  the Deputy Secretary but  the  State  Commission  

ignored the same.  The National Commission brushed aside the report of the  

Deputy Secretary by describing it as an after thought ignoring that the same  

was based on a comprehensive analysis  and evaluation of the documents  

made available by the authorities of the concerned schools.  We have no  

doubt that if the National Commission had carefully examined the report, it  

10

would have certainly called upon respondent No.1 to explain his position on  

the issue of obtaining admission on the strength of fake documents and then  

decided  whether  the  direction  given  by  the  District  Forum,  which  was  

upheld by the State Commission was legally sustainable.  Its failure to do so  

has resulted in miscarriage of justice.  

14. In  the  result,  the  appeal  is  allowed.  The  impugned  order  of  the  

National Commission as also the orders passed by the District Forum and  

State  Commission are set  aside and the matter  is remitted to the District  

Forum for fresh adjudication of the complaint filed by respondent No.1.  The  

District Forum shall decide the objection raised on behalf of the appellant to  

the very maintainability of the complaint as also the issue of limitation.  The  

District Forum shall also consider the report of the Deputy Secretary of the  

Board after giving an opportunity to respondent No.1 to submit his reply in  

the context of the findings and conclusion recorded therein and then pass  

appropriate order. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

………………….…….…J. [G.S. Singhvi]

……………….…………J. [Asok Kumar Ganguly]

11

New Delhi, July 7, 2010.

12