BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 31st day of January, 2006.
C.D.No.103/2005
Y.Nagaraja Rao S/o Y.Krishna Murthy, Aged 30 years, Hindu, Employee,
R/o Door No.18-396, Kamala Nagar, Kurnool.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
1.Rayalaseema Management Colleg Kurnool, Rep by S.Sudhakar,
Co-Ordinator cum Chairman, R.M.C. Group of Institutions.
2.Rayalaseema Management College
Kurnool, Rep by S.Suresh, Branch Co-Ordinator cum Administrator,
3.Rayalaseema Management College Kurnool, Rep by Suneetha, Principal.
Rayalaseema Management College, Sri Nagar Colony, Opp. Sakunthala Mantapam, Nandyal Road, Kurnool.
4.The Registrar,
M.P.Bhoj University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
. . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 25.1.2006 for arguments in the presence of Sri R.Murali Krishna, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri.Y.Rajasekar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite parties No. 1 to3, and opposite party No. 4 is set exparte and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Hon’ble Member)
1. This Consumer Dispute complaint of the complainant is filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to refund the fee Rs.13,000/-with 12% interest per annum from the date of admission, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, cost of the complaint and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant to pursue his Masters in Library Sciences took admission in opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 college which is affiliated M.P. Bhog (Open) University i.e. opposite party No.4 on 2-3-2004 by paying Rs.8,150/-. The opposite parties at the time of admission promised to send course study material to the complainant before commencement of examination. But the complaint did not received the said material for two subjects i.e. Research Methodology and Technical Writings and the same was informed to opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 orally and the opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 did not respond properly. Meanwhile the opposite party No.4 declared the examination date and the complainant paid the examination fee of Rs.5,000/- to opposite parties No.1,2 and 3. Till the date of examination the study material for the said two subjects were not received by the complainant and the complainant appeared for the said examination without study material for the said two subjects. Even after the examinations the complainant did not receive the study material and requested the opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 to refund the admission amount of Rs.8,150/- and opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 sent a letter dated 27-8-2004 to opposite party No.4 requesting to send study material.
3. Even after completion of examinations in the month of August 2004 the opposite parties did not announce the result of said examinations till October 2004 as expected. The complainant to pursue his job opportunities has taken admission in the opposite parties college but the opposite parties till now did not announce the results of said examination. Therefore alleges deficiency of service on opposite parties for cheating the students like the complainant and seeks redressal in this Forum.
4. The complainant in support of his case relied on the following documents viz. (1) Information broucher for the year 2003-2004 of Madya Pradesh Bhog (Open) University (2) Provisional / Admission slip dated 2-3-2004 as to the payment of Rs.8,150/- by complainant to opposite parties college (3) Admission card bearing Roll No.4271116001 issued to the complainant (4) Xerox copy of examination time table for the year 2004 issued by opposite party No.4 (5) Xerox copy of letter dated 21-6-2004 of opposite party No.2 to all students (6) Identity card issued to the complainant by opposite parties and (7) Office copy of letter dated 27-8-2004 of opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.4, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complainant averments in the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A7 for its appreciation in this case and caused interrogatories to opposite party.
5. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 appear through their standing counsel and opposite party No.1 filed written version and opposite parties No.2 and 3 adopted the written version of opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.4 remained exparte throughout the case proceedings.
6. The written version of opposite parties questions the maintainability of the complainant’s case either in law or on facts. But it admits the complainant has taken admission for Masters in Library Sciences with opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 which is affiliated to opposite party No.4. It alleges that the opposite parties never promised to supply study material to the complainant and it is for the opposite party No.4 to supply the study material. The amount paid by the complainant is for registration fee and application fee and no amount is paid for study material. It also further alleges that the complainant never made any oral or any written requests to opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 regarding the supply of study material. The letter dated 27-8-2004 of opposite party No.2 addressed to opposite party No.4 is only on the requests of the complainant. The examinations were conducted in the month of August 2004 but the opposite parties never promised that the results will be announced in the month of October 2004, and it is for the opposite party No.4 (university) to correct the answer sheets and to announce the result and opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 is not responsible for that and alleges that there is no deficiency of service on their part and seeks for dismissal of complaint with costs. The opposite parties 1 to 3 in support of their case relied on the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 and did not file any documents.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging the deficiency of service on part of opposite parties.
8. It is the case of the complainant that he has taken admission in opposite parties college for Masters in Library Sciences to pursue his job career in K.T.M. College of Engineering, Kondair, Mahabubnagar District. He further alleges that the opposite parties received an amount of Rs.8,150/- as admission fee and application fee vide Ex A.2 and promised to send study material for the said course and the opposite parties issued admission card vide Ex A.3 and Identity card vide Ex A.6 . The complainant alleges that the opposite parties failed to supply study material for two subjects i.e. Research Methodology and Technical writing, even after announcing of examination date by opposite party No.4 (University ) vide Ex A.4 and the complainant was made to appear for the said examination in August 2004 without study material and to the dismay of the complainant the opposite parties did not announce the results till October, 2004. While such is so with the complainant the opposite parties 1 to 3 alleges that it is for the opposite party No.4 to correct the answer sheets and to declare the results and opposite parties 1 to 3 are in no way responsible for the same, they also allege that they never promise to supply study material to the complainant. The above allegations of the opposite parties cannot be accepted as it is a shock to know that when the opposite parties collected Rs.8,150/- towards admission fee and the course the complainant joined is in an open university and it is known fact that the admission fee includes study material costs also and when the opposite parties failed to supply the said study material to the complainant, it is definitely deficiency of service, as the fees paid by the complainant for the services of opposite parties in rendering by way of supplying study material and imparting education to the complainant and if there is no rendering of the service it is deficiency of service on part of opposite parties. It is to be seen from Ex A.7 letter dated 27.8.2004 addressed by opposite party No.3 to opposite party No.4, the said exhibit envisages that the complainant was yet to receive study material for two subjects i.e. Research Methodology and Technical writing and also further admits that the material received by him from the University (opposite party No.4) was inturn supplied to the candidates and still there is some due material yet to be received and requests the opposite party No.4 to act positively. In their written version the opposite parties 1 to 3 stated that they are not bound to supply study material but in the Ex A.7 the opposite party No.3 admits the receipt of study material from opposite party No.4 and supplied the same to their candidates and also admits the complainant was yet to receive material for two subjects, hence, the above statement of opposite parties on this aspects not only remaining highly inconsistence but also there by untrust worthy and as consisting of any bonafidies of the opposite parties in that regard.
9. The Ex B.5 letter dated 21.6.2004 of opposite parties 1 to 3 referring to all the students, it requests to pay examination fee of Rs.500/- and to collect material at the time of submission of examination application form, subsequent to the said letter what appears is that the opposite parties did not kept up his promise of supplying study material for two subjects to the complainant within the schedule time and holding examinations without supplying study material and making the complainant to appear the said examination without study material and there after, the complainant was kept in dark ness of the results and did not announce the results within prescribed limit. The facts borne in the above record are not denied by the opposite party’s side. Hence, from them it remains clear that the complainant was yet to receive study material for two subjects and the opposite parties conducted examinations without supplying study material, as is remaining established by the complainant. Therefore, what follows is that the opposite parties failed to supply study material for two subjects to the complainant before announcing the date of examination and there after did not announcing the results of said examinations, within stipulated limits hence, there appears every bonafidies of the complainant in his hesitation on the said grievances and there arises every deficiency of service on the side of opposite parties in that regard.
10. Hence, in the circumstances discussed above, as there is clear deficiency of service of opposite parties in not supplying study material to the complainant for two subjects and not keeping up its promise to announce the results of examinations. The complainant is remaining entitle to compensation for the suffering damage and mental agony he faced at the deficient conduct and deficiency of service of the opposite parties as the complainant as student is a consumer and the damages suffered at the deficiency of service of the opposite party and the loss suffered by the complainant is indeminifiable as the complainant could not complete M.Lib.Sc within time to pursue his job opportunities. As the complainant did not place any material as to the payment of Rs.5,000/- as examination fee, the same is rejected.
11. Therefore, in the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund to the complainant Rs.8,150/- paid to the opposite parties at the time of admission, and to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for damage and mental agony suffered by the complainant at the deficient conduct and deficiency of service of the opposite parties in not supplying study material to the complainant before holding examinations and for not declaring the results and Rs.2,000/- as costs within a month of receipt of this order. In default the opposite parties shall pay the supra awarded amount with 12% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 31st day of January, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex.A1 Information broucher for the year 2003-2004 of Madya Pradesh Bhog
(Open) University
Ex.A2 Provisional / Admission slip dated 2-3-2004 as to the payment of
Rs.8,150/- by complainant to opposite parties college
Ex.A3 Admission card bearing Roll No.4271116001 issued to the complainant
Ex.A4 Xerox copy of examination time table for the year 2004 issued by
opposite party No.4
Ex.A5 Xerox copy of letter dated 21-6-2004 of opposite party No.2 to all
students
Ex.A6 Identity card issued to the complainant by opposite parties
Ex.A7 Office copy of letter dated 27-8-2004 of opposite party No.2 to opposite
party No.4
Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties: Nil
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri. R.Murali Krishna, Advocate, Kurnool
2. Sri. Y.Rajasekar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool
3. The Registrar, M.P. Bhoj University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties on:
