th May 2009th class in 2008-09. The petitioner applied for the test and the respondents issuedth class admission for residential schoolsth class instead of supplying 5th classth class question paper. It was not supplied. Therefore, the C.C. No. 128 of 2008th class question paper instead of informing the same to theth class question paper would have supplied, the petitioner C.C. No. 128 of 2008th page ofth column a separate code No. was given to each place of examination in thatth column as per prospects.th class. It was not correctth thclass examination only. It was not for 5 center was allotted with respective code No. for 5 th class examination center. A separateth class examination. Therefore, it4 was not correct that the Invigilator supplied 6 C.C. No. 128 of 2008th class question paper instead of 5thclass question paper and the petitioner informed the Invigilator to supply 5 question paper, who was kept silent. The petitioner appeared for 6 examination instead 5 invigilator because there were no candidates for 5 examination center. In these circumstances there are no merits in the complaint and is liable to be dismissed with costs. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. i. Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents? ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for? iii. To what relief? 7. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A8 were marked and on behalf of the respondents Ex. B1 to B8 were marked. No written arguments were filed by both parties. 8. Point No. 1 & 2 The complainant was a minor represented by father and natural guardian Bukke Devadas Naik. The petitioner applied for 5 Common Admission Test during the academic year 2008-09 to R1. He filed a Xerox copy of application for common admission test for 5 respondents filed a prospectus for Kadapa District for common admission test for 5 th classth classth class examination. There was no negligence on the part ofth class entrance test at theth classth class under Ex. A1. Theth& 6 B1. Ex. B1 was very clear regarding Residential schools and its strength with category of reservation and also the procedure to fill the application form with model form filling the blanks in the application form and also code Nos. for examination centers at relevant columns in the application and model question paper for 5 6 petitioner should thoroughly read the prospectus which was in Telugu and then fill th class during academic year 2008-09 to be conducted on 18-5-2008 under Ex.th andth class. Before filling the application form the guardian father of the student i.e.5 up the blanks in the application form and later submit it to the concerned authorities. 9. The allegations raised by the petitioner was allotted the hall ticket bearing No. 61201201 for 5 paper and he secured 32 marks in 6 Schools. So the R2 issued the question paper for 6 issuing 5 petitioner informed the same. The complainant filed a question paper for 6 Admission Test under Ex. A2 and result of the 6 with 32 marks with hall ticket No. 61201201 under Ex. A4. Ex. A3 was the paper clipping with particulars of website. The complainant got issued a notice to R2. The office copy of the notice was Ex. A5. Ex. A6 was another office copy of the notice issued to both the respondents. Ex. A7 was the postal acknowledgements from R2 & R1. Ex. A8 was study certificate issued by Sri Swami Vivekananda English Medium High School, Narajupet, Kadapa to the petitioner. 10. In the application form Ex. A1 under column No. 5 examination center code number was shown as 01. In the same application form under Ex. A1 under column No. 12 the district code was also mentioned as -01. So the code No. of examination center as well as the code No. of the district was filled up as -01. In prospectus under Ex. B1 at page – 10 the examination center code No. for Kadapa was given as – 01, which had to be noted under Col. No. 5 in the application. So the petitioner noted 01 – as examination center at Kadapa as per instructions at page – 10 of Ex. B1. But under col. No. 12 in Ex. A1, the district code No. was shown as – 01 instead of 12 as mentioned at page – 12 of the prospectus Ex. B1. Therefore, Ex. B1 prospectus was very clear that code No. to Kadapa was – 12 and not – 01. Since the petitioner mentioned the District code No. 01, the hall ticket number allotted to C.C. No. 128 of 2008th class examination but he was given 6th class questionth class Common Admission Test for Residentialth class admission instead ofth class question paper and the Invigilator was kept silent, after theth classth class admission as not selected6 him was 50102029 at Srikakulam district and the examination center was M.P.U.P.S (Main), near Head Post Office, Ambedkar Junction, Tekkali, Srikakulam. The 01 – Examination Center and 01 district code were allotted to Tekkali of Srikakulam district. To that effect the respondents filed Ex. B3, nominal Roll of the candidates appearing for entrance test for 5 Sl. No. 29 was shown as the name of the petitioner with father’s name and hall ticket No. Therefore, there was no scope to the petitioner to attend at Tekkali for examination because he belonged to Kadapa District. 11. The entire mistake was committed by the guardian / father while filling up the application form. Hence, applicant i.e. petitioner was allotted Tekkali center of Srikakulam District for Admission Test for 5 received or any mistakes found in the hall ticket, the Superintendent of Examination center would allot a buffer role number along with one OMR sheet to the candidate on the date of examination. The buffer number should not be issued a day prior to the examination. 12. The 5 High School (Main), Kadapa and the 6 Municipal Corporation High School, Nagajupet, Kadapa on the same day 18-5-2008. The center No. was 12/01 for Admission Test to both the classes The numerical 12 would denote ‘Kadapa district’ a n d the numerical 01 would denote examination center. The center wise hall ticket No. allotment to 5 center wise hall ticket No. for 6 examination center atleast 15 minutes in advance of the examination. The petitioner applied for admission test for 5 examination center by his parents, who would enquire the Superintendent of Examination Center whether the center was for 5 C.C. No. 128 of 2008th class at Tekkali, Srikakulam district in which theth class. In case the hall ticket was notth class Admission Test was conducted at Municipal Corporationth Class Admission test was conducted atth class was Ex. B5 and anotherth class was Ex. B6. A student would attend to theth class. Therefore, he should be taken to theth class admission test or not.7 Instead of it the petitioner appeared for 6 Corporation High School, Nagarajupet, Kadapa. In case it was the only center for both admission tests then there was confusion to the students and the parents. But the said school was exclusively for 6 another examination center for 5 School (Main), Kadapa. Instead of going to the Municipal Corporation High School (Main) Kadapa for admission test to 5 Corporation High School, Nagarajupet, Kadapa for 6 there was no negligence on the part of the respondents. 13. The respondents filed Ex. B4 a Xerox copy of special instructions to the observers for Common Entrance Test 2008. Ex. B7 was Xerox copy of OMR sheet. Ex. B8 was Xerox copy of Eenadu paper clipping, dt. 16-5-2008 for change of examination center at Rajampet and requesting the students to obtain duplicate hall tickets in case they would not receive hall tickets. Ex. B2 was Xerox copy of letter from Secretary, A.P. Residential Educational Institutions Society (R), Hyderabad to the Post Master, R.C. Puram, H.E. Hyderabad requesting to dispatch hall tickets to the candidates since the amount was sent for postal and service charges. Therefore, there are no merits in the complaint and there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the respondents. Hence, the complainant is dismissed without costs. Accordingly the points are answered. 14. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs. Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 5 MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined. For Complainant : NIL For Respondent : NIL Exhibits marked for Complainant : - Ex. A1 X/c of Application for Common Admission Test for 5 C.C. No. 128 of 2008th class admission test at Municipalth class admission test center. There wasth class admission at Municpal Corporation Highth class, the petitioner attended at Municipalth class admissions. Therefore,th May 2009th Class 2008-09.8 Ex. A2 6 Ex. A3 Paper clipping, dt. 22-6-2008. Ex. A4 X/c of ResCat 6 Ex. A5 X/c of legal notice from complainant’s advocate to R2, dt. 3-7-2008. Ex. A6 X/c of legal notice from complainant’s advocate to respondents, dt. 24-7-2008. Ex. A7 Two postal acknowledgement cards. Ex. A8 Study certificate issued by Sree Swamy Vivikenda English medium High School, Nagarajupet, Kadapa. Exhibits marked for Respondents: - Ex. B1 Application cum prospectus for the year 2008-09. Ex. B2 X/c of letter from R1 to the Post Master, R.C. Puram, H.E Hyderabad, dt. 9-5-2008. Ex. B3 X/c of Naminal roll of the candidates appearing for entrance test on 18-5-2008 for 5 Ex. B4 X/c of Special instructions to the observers for conduct of common Admission test 2008 issued by R1. Ex. B5 X/c of 5 Ex. B6 X/c of 6 Ex. B7 X/c of OMR sheet No. 406791. Ex. B8 X/c of Eenadu paper clipping, dt. 16-5-2008.. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Copy to :- 1) Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate, 2) Sri D. Lakshminarayana, Advocate. 1) Copy was made ready on : 2) Copy was dispatched on : 3) Copy of delivered to parties : B.V.P. - - - C.C. No. 128 of 2008th Class question paper booklet code D.th class results 2008.th Class in Tekkali, Srikakulam district.th class centre wise hall ticket numbers allotment.th class centre wise hall ticket numbers allotment. CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 128 / 2008 Bukke Sai Kumar Naik, Minor aged about 10 years, Hindu, Rep. by Guardian Next Friend / Natural Father, Bukke Devadas Naik, S/o Bukke Govindu Naik, aged about 30 years, Hindu, Resident of D.No. 2/526, Boreddy Street, Kadapa Dist. ….. Complainant. Vs. 1) The Convener, Residential Schools for Common Admissions Test – 2008, O/o Secretary APRET Society (Retd.), III Floor, Gagan Vihar, M-3 road, Nampalli, Hyderabad – 500 001. 2) The Principal, A.P Residential (Urdu), Ramanjaneya Puram, Chinna Chowk, Kadapa – 516 002. ….. Respondents. This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 30-04-2009 in the presence of Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for complainant and Sri D. Lakshminarayana, Advocate for respondents and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:- O R D E R (Per Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao, President), 1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The petitioner was a minor represented by Guardian and father. The R1 conducted common admission test for 5 hall ticket bearing No. 61201201 for 5 common admission test for the academic year 2008-09. The respondents allotted examination center to the petitioner at Gundachary school, Kadapa and intimated the date of examination. On the date of examination at the examination center the invigilator issued a question paper for 6 question paper to the petitioner. The complainant intimated the same to the Invigilator and asked for 5 2 complainant attempted 6 Chief Examination Officer. However, the complainant secured 32 marks. The petitioner’s guardian brought it to the notice of the higher authorities. But there was no response. In case 5 might have secured more marks and certainly got admission in the residential schools. The petitioner was a Schedule Tribe student. In view of wrongful acts committed by the respondents, the petitioner could not get admission in Residential Schools. It was gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents. The complainant lost one academic year and hence, the complaint was filed for Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damages along with interest and costs. 3. The R2 filed a counter adopted by R1 with a memo. The petition was not maintainable as the petitioner was not a consumer under C.P. Act. The Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational Institutions Society had a Chairman and Vice – Chairman i.e. Minister for School Education and Principal Secretary to Government respectively. The Vice chairman was a necessary party and he was not impleaded and hence, the petition may be dismissed. The prospectus concerning to the particular District would be supplied along with application form for admission test. The prospectus disclosed full information regarding filling up of the application form. On receipt of the application, hall ticket would be issued. In case the hall ticket was not received or wrong hall ticket was issued the candidate should approach concerned District Educational officer for rectification or for issuance of a fresh hall ticket. Even, otherwise the candidate would approach the examination center and then on proof he would be issued a buffer No. and blank OMR sheet to attend the examination. Each center would be provided with 20 buffer roll Nos. and 20 blank OMR sheets and 20 blank ICR applications. Every district would be given a separate code No. and place of conducting examination. C.C. No. 128 of 2008 DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT SMT. B. DURGA KUMARI, B.A., B.L., SRI S. ABDUL KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER Tuesday, 5 3 4. In application form submitted by the petitioner under col. No. 12 the place in which the candidate was studying should have to be given. At 12 prospectus relating to the Col. No. 12 in the application form it was specifically mentioned. The petitioner should have mentioned the district code as 12 for Kadapa District. In the application form the district code No. 01 i.e. for Srikakulam was noted. The computers would accept and recognize numerical codes but not words. In 5 particular district. If the candidate had opted for Kadapa district by stating district code No. 12, he had to select the examination center in 5 The examination center would be decided on area basis for a particular District. In the present application form the petitioner mentioned the district code a s 01 - Srikakulam District and examination center as 01 – Tekkali. Thus the petitioner was allotted a hall ticket bearing No. 50102029 at the examination center – MPUPS school (Main), near Head Post office, Ambedkar Junction, Tekkali, Srikakulam District. 5. The date of examination was 18-5-2008 for 5 that the petitioner was issued a hall ticket bearing No. 61201201 for appearing 6 class at Kadapa district. The petitioner did not approach the District Educational Officer, Kadapa for rectification or for fresh hall ticket. The respondent institution gave vide publicity to media requesting the students, who had not received the hall tickets to meet District Educational Officer for proper action. The petitioner did not contact the concerned District Educational Officer. Had the petitioner contacted the District Educational Officer, Kadapa his hall ticket would have been rectified then and there itself. He was allotted buffer roll No. because he approached the Examination center i.e. Gundachary School, Kadapa and attended the examination. The buffer roll No. was treated as hall ticket. Gundachary school, Kadapa was for 6
......................B. Durga Kumari
......................Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao
......................Sri.S.A.Khader Basha | | 
