The main legal point established in the judgment is that charging funds not directly related to imparting education constitutes a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, President—We are sorry to comment that justice delivery system with regard to consumer disputes arising from the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is pathetic and has lost its object and aims to ensure the adjudication within three to five months solely because of not only the indifferent and insensitive attitude of the Government but its audacity to challenge those who call upon it to ensure the implementation and enforcement of the Act in letter and spirit to ameliorate the plight of poor consumer at large.

2. Recently, we had passed very adverse comments against the Government of NCT of Delhi as to its attitude towards the plight of the consumers as their disputes are not being decided within the statutory limit of three months or six months depending upon case to case and had recommended to create more Benches of the State Commissin as well as more District Fora in respect of those District Fora where the pendency of cases is more than 500 to 1000 cases. It is in view such a large number of pendency of cases that the main object of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as contemplated by Section 13(3)(A) has been sacrificed.

3. We are pained to have come across this case which has taken more than 9 long years because of the aforesaid inaction and insensitivity on the part of the Government. When the incumbent President of this Commission took over, as many as 4724 cases were pending besides 1494 miscellaneous matters out of which more than 3000 were pending for the last more than 10 to 15 years. Faced with such a huge problem of backlog and increased inflow of new cases as during July, 2004 to 1st October, 2006 as many as 3104 new matters/cases were instituted and similarly in District Forum of New Delhi and ISBT where more than two thousands cases were pending for years that this Commission made recommendations for creating additional Benches and additional District Fora.

4. It has taken more than 9 years for this simple and short matter involving compensation of Rs. 900 only to reach the stage of final decision as thousands of cases have been gathering just because of the negative attitude of the Government.

5. Here is a case where the appellant was directed to refund the amount of Rs. 550 charged by it for issuance of school leaving certificate and also to pay Rs. 250 as compensation and Rs. 250 towards cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred this appeal in the year 1999 whereas the impugned order was passed on 11.12.1998.

6. Admittedly the appellant school has facility to teach students upto 7th class only. In March, 1998, son of the respondent passed 7th class from the appellant school. In April, 1998 when he demanded from the Principal of appellant school, school leaving certificate of his son, he was forced to pay several visits and ultimately was charged as fee of Rs. 550 against delivery of the said certificate. Though the impugned order was ex parte order but the learned Counsel for the appellant appeared and contended that the respondent was a student of Bal Bhawan Public School, Mayur Vihar Branch of the appellant school and not the Gandhi Nagar Branch of the school as the said branch is upto class 6th and in this respect, the appellant has produced certain documents issued by the Directorate of Education and secondly that attendance record showed that respondent attended the school upto 19.4.1998 and therefore, the fee of Rs. 550 was charged towards tuition fee for the month of April, 1998 and not towards the school leaving certificate and thus the appellant is not guilty for deficiency in service and is not liable to refund the aforesaid fees compensation and cost of litigation.

7. He further contended that the Principal of Mayur Vihar Branch has not been made a party and therefore, he cannot be directed to refund the fees as the aforesaid amount was charged by Mayur Vihar Branch.

8. It is painful that the appellant has taken such pleas only to avoid refund of an amount o