Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri.R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 18th day of August, 2004
C.D.No.36/2004
P.Raghunatha Reddy, S/o P.Chenna Reddy,
R/o H.No.57-41, Ramarao Gate, Kurnool.
. . . Complainant In Person
-Vs-
1.Controller of Examinations,
Sri Krishna Devaraya University, Anantapur.
. . . Opposite party No.1 represented by his counsel
Sri.D.Srinivasulu
2.Principal, St.Josephs Degree College,
Sunkesula Road, Kurnool.
. . . Opposite party
.
O R D E R
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act seeking Rs.20,000/- as damages from the opposite party No.1 for the mental agony suffered at the deficient conduct of the said opposite party and Rs.3,000/- towards costs.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant appeared for the first year annual B.Com., Examinations held in April, 2003 as the student of St.Joseph Degree College, Sunkesula Road, Kurnool and passed the subjects of the said course in the examinations vide Register No.3625020 and was furnished with the memorandum of marks No.UG.05 7477 on 12-07-2003 by his College Authorities. As the marks obtained below to the expectation and to obtain Fees concession in the said Course declared by his College, he applied on 22-07-2003 in required proforma to the opposite party no.1 for the revaluation of 5 subjects answer scripts of his B.Com., 1st year degree Examinations remitting a fees of Rs.175/- for each subject vide separate D.Ds and they were acknowledged by the opposite party No.1 on 23-07-2003 vide courier service receipt No.987242 of the Professional Courier Service. In-spite of lapse of much time months together nothing was heard from the opposite party No.1, a written representation was given on 16-02-2004 seeking for communication of the result of the revaluation lest for resorting to the legal action for the deficiency of service and it was acknowledged by the opposite party no.1 on 17-02-2004. No communication was given as to the revaluation applied by the complainant to the College Authorities at Kurnool even. The above said lapsive conduct of the opposite party No.1 as is amounting to deficiency of service and causing mental agony to the complainant, the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
3. Inpursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant, while the opposite party No.2 abstained to the proceedings remaining exparte. The opposite party No.1 contested a case by filing a written version denying of any of deficiency on its part and there by any of its liability for the reliefs sought by the complainant.
4. The written version of the opposite party No.1 besides questioning the justness and the maintainability of the complainant’s case in Law and facts requiring the strict proof of the complaint averments, even though admit the fact of the complainant applying for revaluation of his answer scripts of the 1st Year Annual B.Com., subjects averred in the complaint and the remittance of the necessary fees for that, denied the alleged non-responsive conduct on its part alleging that the said written representation date d 16-02-2004 was sent to Professor In charge for the appropriate action and the Rule position as to the communication of revised marks list only, when there is increase in marks in the said revaluation and the complainant being communicated through the Professional Courier of the result of the revaluation as “original marks sand” and hence deny any deficiency of service on its part and thereby any liability to make good of the claim of the complainant.
5. In substantiation of the complaint averments while the complainant’s side has relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 and his sworn affidavit in reiteration of the complaint averments, the opposite party No.1 has relied upon the documentary record in Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 besides to his sworn affidavit in reiteration of its defence.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1 was proved as alleged by the complainant entitling him to the reliefs sought.
7.The Ex.A1is the covering letter under which the complainant has sought the revaluation of his first year B.com., annual examination answer scripts enclosing there with duly filed proforma and the required fees in the form of Demand Drafts. The Ex.A2 is the Professional Courier’s receipt under which the Ex.A1 was sent to the opposite party No.1. The Ex.A3 is the acknowledgement of the opposite party No.1 of the post sent under Ex.A1. The Ex.A6 is the counterfoils of the D.Ds. sent towards the remittance of the relevant fees. These facts not being denied by the opposite party No.1 they stand conclusively proved for what they envisaged. The Ex.A4 is the letter dated 16-02-2004 wherein the complainant renewed the request for the revaluation of his answer scripts and for the communication of the result of the said revaluation. The said representation in Ex.A4 was acknowledged by the opposite party No.1vdie Ex.A5. The aid facts were being not denied by the opposite party No.1 and on the other hand it was submitted that it was sent to the concerned Professor In Charge for the necessary disposal. Hence the Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 also remains proved for what they envisaged.
8. The Ex.A7 is an attested copy of circular issued by the opposite party No.2 for providing concession of the college fees by its waiver to those who secured 80% and above in the University Examination in succeeding year and who have been put up 75% attendance in the preceding year and passed Part-I with not less than 60% and Part-II with 80% and above in the same Academic Year in one attempt. This remains with little relevancy for the appreciation in this case as the operation of the said circular is subject to occurrence of the several contingencies of the past, present and the future and such a circumstances is not present in the cause of action of the complainant on one hand and on the other the cause of action of the complainant is mainly dealing as to the deficiency of the service of the opposite party no.1 in not responding properly to the revaluation sought.
9. The opposite party no.1 alleges in reference to Ex.B2 and Ex.B3 that when there is an increase in the marks on revaluation the candidate applied for the revaluation will be asked to return the original marks memo for issuing a revised marks memorandum and when there is no substantial increase in the marks on the said revaluation the candidate who applied for the said revaluation of the answer scripts of the subjects appeared in the Examination held by the said University, will be simply informed that “Original marks stand” and the revaluation marks intimation pertaining to first year B.A., B.Sc., B.Com., and B.C.A course for the year, 2003 were issued to the professional courier vide Ex.B1 for the dispatching the same to the candidates on account of the non-availability of the service stamps. The said Ex.B1 merely says of the number of the covers send there under for B.A., all languages, B.Com., and the B.Sc., degrees. In neither says of the particulars of the candidates who are covered therein nor of their categorization either as of the Ex.B2 or Ex.B3 or especially any reference to the complainant’s register number. As the Ex.B1 is not furnishing any required information and the particulars as to the result of the revaluation applied by the complainant either way classifying it to the Ex.B2 or Ex.B3 proforma and in the absence of any cogent material as to the proper communication of result of the revaluation to the complainant the said conduct of the opposite party No.1 is clearly amounting to a deficiency of service with a supine indifference which could cause not only a loss of time, but also mental agony to any effected reasonable prudent person of the said circumstances entitling him to the compensation from the concerned responsible for the said deficiency of the service.
10. As the complainant is not seeking any relief or grievance on the opposite party No.2, the case against the opposite party No.2 is dismissed.
11. Therefore, in the circumstances discussed above the complainant has suffered mental agony and the loss of the valuable time at the deficient conduct of the opposite party No.1, there appears justness in the claim made by the complainant therefore, the complainant is remaining entitled to an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered at the deficiency of the service of the opposite party No.1 and Rs.3,000/- towards the costs of this case.
12. Consequently, the complainant is allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to pay supra award amount to the complainant within a month of the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the dictation, corrected by us, and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 18th day of August, 2004.
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For the complainant:- Nil For the opposite parties:- Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Office copy of covering letter dated 22-07-2003 addressed by complainant to opposite party No.1.
Ex.A2 Courier receipt No.987242 in which Ex.A1 sent to opposite party No.1 by the complainant.
Ex.A3 Xerox copy of acknowledgement of opposite party No.1 as to the receipt of Ex.A1.
Ex.A4 Reminder dated 16-02-2004 given by complainant to opposite party No.1.
Ex.A5 acknowledgement of opposite party No.1on the courier receipt as to the receipt of Ex.A4
Ex.A6 True copy of circular No.3/22/07/02 issued by opposite party No.2.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Certificate dated 31-12-2003 issued by Sri.K.D.U, Anantapur.
Ex.B2 Proforma (CS) revaluation marks memorandum to be return by candidate.
Ex.B3 Proforma (CS) revaluation subject to original marks stand.
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
