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
Thursday the 23rd day of March, 2006
CC No. 9/2006
G. Hemalatha,
W/o. S.Siva Rami Reddy,
Aged about 28 years,
H.No. 14/106, Bolavaram Street,
Koilakuntla,
Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
- The Registrar,
Amebedkhar Open University,
Rami Reddy Marg , Road No. 46,
Jublee hills, Hyderabad.
- Co.Ordinator cum Principal,
Amebedkhar Open University,
Silver Jublee College,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 22.3.2006 for arguments in the presence of Sri P. Siva Sudarshna, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and opposite party 1 and 2 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 complaint of the complainant is filed under section 11 and 12 of C.P Act seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh, costs of the complaint and any other relief of reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2 The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, on 5.7.2004 the opposite party No.1 advertised in all leading newspapers for admission in single subject course for the year 2004-2005, the complainant attracted by the advertised sent a D.D for Rs. 80/- to opposite party No.2 seeking an application for admission for single subject course. But the opposite party No.2 issued an admission application form for first year of three years under graduate course for the year 2004-2005 instead of single subject application. Later on when the mistake was observed the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 with a request for single subject application, the opposite party No.2 without any reason refused to issue the correct application form, inspite of several requests and approaches by the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant could not submitted her application to the University as the complainant was working as a teacher she lost her promotion chances. The above said lapsive conduct of opposite parties constrained the complainant to resort to the Forum for redressal.
3. The complainant in support of her case relied on the following documents Viz (1) counter foil of draft application form for Rs.80 including Rs.30/- as exchange (2) Paper notification dated 5.7.2004 issued by the opposite party No.1 in Eenadu paper and (3) application for taking admission in first year of three years under graduate course, besides to the sworn affidavit of complainant in reiteration of her complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.3 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.2 appeared through their standing counsel but did not filed any written version. The opposite party 1 and 2 are made exparte and were absent through out the case proceedings.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties.
6. It is a simple case of the complainant alleging deficiency of service on opposite parties for not issuing correct Application Form. The complainant submitted that on 21.7.2004 she has taken a draft for Rs.50/- vide Ex A.1 for obtaining an application for single subject as per the paper notification dated 5.7.2004 vide Ex A.2. The Ex A.2 is the paper notification issued by opposite party No.1 in Eenadu paper as to the single subject admission and request to pay Rs.50 through demand draft to opposite party No.1 for obtaining single subject application form.
- The complainant after obtaining the said draft approached the opposite party No.2 for collecting single subject application form but the opposite party No.2 instead of giving single subject admission application form gave an admission application form to first year of three years under graduate course for the years 2004-2005. On observing the said mistake the complainant approached and requested the opposite party No.2 to give correct application form to which the opposite party No.2 refused without given any proper reason, hence, there remains every deficiency of service on part of opposite parties in not issuing correct application form to the complainant.
8. The complaint averments and sworn affidavit averments and the documents marked are not disputed by the opposite parties hence, there appears every justification in the claim made by the complainant and hence, the complainant is certainly remaining entitled to compensation and costs.
9. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.500/- as compensation and Rs.200/- 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.
Dictation to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced in the Open Court this the 23rd day of March, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIS OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant For the opposite parties
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 Counter foil of draft application form for Rs.80/- including Rs.30/- ad
exchange.
Ex A.2 Paper notification dated 5.7.2004 issued by the opposite party No.1 in
Eenadu paper.
Ex A.3 Application for taking admission in first year of three years under
Graduate course.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
-Nil-
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
- Sri P. Siva Sudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool.
- The Registrar, Amebedkhar Open University, Rami Reddy Marg , Road No. 46, Jublee hills, Hyderabad.
- Co.Ordinator cum Principal, Amebedkhar Open University, Silver Jublee College, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
