Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/582/2015

Shrishail A Patil - Complainant(s)

Versus

Authorised Officer Bangalore University - Opp.Party(s)

M K Patil

29 Nov 2016

ORDER

                

ADDITIONAL  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BELAGAVI

C.C.No.582/2015

                     Date of filing: 25/11/2015

                                                                   Date of disposal:29/11/2016

P R E S E N T :-

 

	(1)	Shri. A.G.Maldar, B.Com,LL.B. (Spl.) President.
	(2)	Smt.J.S. Kajagar, B.Sc. LLB. (Spl.)  Lady Member.

 

 

COMPLAINANT   -

Shri.Shrishail S/o Anneppa Patil, Age: 35 Years, Occ: Army Service, R/o: No.23, Rani Channamma Nagar, Belagavi, Now R/o at: 228, Field Regiment – Pin 926228 C/o: 56 APO.                     (Rep. by Sri.N.M. Patil, Adv.)

                                                    - V/S -

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES  -

1.         2.

Authorized Officer, Bangalore University, Directorate of Correspondence Courses And Distance Education, Central College Campus, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengalore.   The Coordinator, Shri.Revansiddeshwar Rural Development and Social Welfare Society ®, Bangalore University Study Centre, S.M. Patil, Vidya Bhavan, Ghataprabha Tq: Gokak, Dist.Belagavi.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                    ORDER ON MAINTAINABILITY

 

By Sri. A.G.Maldar, President.

 

 

1.      This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as Act) against the Opposite Parties (in short the “Ops”) directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of academic career resulting into loss of promotion, increments and Civil Service etc., and compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards Mental agony, pain and suffering etc., & any other reliefs etc.,

 

2.      The facts of the case in brief are that;

           The complainant is contended that, the OP.No.1 is the Directorate of correspondence Courses and Distance Education of Bangalore University and Op.No.2 is the Coordinator of Op.No.1. The Op.No.2 has taken admission of Correspondence Courses of Op.No.1. At the time of taking admission to B.A.Part-I, the complainant has specifically told to the Op.No.2 that, he is in army service and he is staying away from Karnataka State and to attend the examination and complainant has to take one month prior approval to get the leave to attend the examination from army authority and for that, the OP.No.2 agreed and assured complainant to give intimation well in time and supply the time table. Accordingly, the complainant had already appeared B.A-I Part-I and II examination conducted by the OPs.

 

          It is contended that, the complainant was frequently making enquiry with the Op.No.2 regarding schedule of examination time table, but Op.No.2 went on stating to complainant that, examination is not yet schedule and time table and the OP.No.2 assured the complainant that, he will intimate well in time. But, suddenly the Op.No.2 has sent the time table by post on 24.03.2015 which was reached to Tilakawadi Post office on 25.03.2015 and same was delivered on 26.03.2015 to the complainant i.e. after lapse of one day of commencing the examination. Hence in view of non receipt of intimation well in time regarding fixing of the examination, the complainant could not attend B.A-III year examination held during the month of March/April 2015. Moreover, the OPs are not having fixed time schedule for conducting the examination every year, because some year they have conducted examination in the month of July and December and this year they conducted the examination during the month of March/April 2015. All these aspects make it crystal clear that, OPs were totally negligent and same amounts to deficiency of service as contemplated under the provision of the C.P. Act.  Hence, this complaint.

 

3.      After filing the complaint, on perusal of the complaint and records, before going to the merit of the case, this Forum noticed that, whether complaint filed by the complainant maintainable or not? Therefore, this Forum has given opportunity to hear on the maintainability before issuance of notice to the OPs. But, neither complainant nor his Counsel appear and nor advanced his argument on the point of maintainable. So, looking to the above circumstances this forum has posted the case to here on maintainable and when there was no any representation either by complainant or by his Counsel. Therefore, argument taken as heard and posted for order.

 

  Now, on the basis of this fact, the following points are arise for our consideration are;

 

 

1.     2.	Whether the Complaint is proved that, the complaint is maintainable U/s 2 (1) (d) of the C.P. Act - 1986?   Whether the complainant is proved that, there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs?
3.	What Order?

 

4.      Our finding to the Points  are as under.

 

Point No.1 & 2 in the Negative

Point No.2 as per the final Order for the following;    

 

R E A S O N S

 

5.      POINT NO.1:  After careful going through the pleadings of the complaint, it is crystal clear that, prima-facia it shows that, the complainant has taking admission to B.A.-III of Correspondence Courses from Op.No.1 and Op.No.2 is the Coordinator of Op.No.1. The case of the complainant is that, at the time of admission, the complainant told to the Op.No.2 that, he is the army service, complainant has to take prior approval to attend the examination and further case of the complainant is that, the OP.No.2 agreed and assured complainant to give intimation well in advance and furnish the time table and the complainant frequently asking and enquiring in respect of time table with the OP.No.2.  

 

          But, suddenly the Op.No.2 has sent the time table by post on 24.03.2015 which was reached to Tilakawadi Post office on 25.03.2015 and same was delivered on 26.03.2015 to the complainant. After lapse of one day of examination, due to this the complainant could not attend and give examination, these acts of the OPs are amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OPs. For that proposition of law, neither complainant nor his Counsel produced any cogent material document to show that, the time table has been issued by the complainant on alleged date i.e. 26.03.2015 and there is no any piece of document produced by the complainant to hold that, the time table has been issued on the alleged date, and even he has not explained by advancing his argument towards deficiency and also he has not furnished any prospect which consist of as alleged in the complaint in respect of examination prior to one month. Mere, pleading does not sufficient to hold that, OPs are agreed to intimate prior to one month of examination and same has to be intimated to the complainant, in this regard, the complainant has failed to establish by proving his case by explaining and evaluation by convincing this Forum that, these acts of the OPs are amounts to deficiency in service and there is a contract between the complainant and OPs.

 

After perusing pleadings of the complaint and documents and after going through the above discussed facts, in order to maintain a complaint under the provisions of the C.P. Act 1986, the complainant must be a ‘consumer’ and the OPs must be a ‘service providers’ as defined under the provisions of the C.P Act, 1986, so as to maintain a complaint against the OPs for the alleged negligent and deficiency in service, for that proposition of law we would like to refer a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the decision reported in 2012 (2) CPR 72 (NC) has held that, only a ‘consumer’ can maintain a ‘consumer complaint’ under the provisions of the C.P Act against the service providers.  Further we would like to rely on a another decision of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in IV (2011) CPJ 175 (NC), it has held by the Hon’ble National Commission that, when the averments made in the complaint does not disclose any relationship of ‘consumer’ and provider of the service between the parties, complaint is not maintainable, same is liable to be dismissed.  Hence in the instant case also complaint does not fall within the meaning of ‘consumer’ and the averments made in the complaint does not disclose any relationship of ‘consumer’ and provider of the service between the parties. Hence, this complaint is not maintainable, same is liable to be dismissed

 

 

By looking to the facts of the case, there is no relation between the parties as alleged by the complainant in the complaint. The complainant is not a consumer and Ops are no service provider. It is an educational institute the complaint has to as and when approach or get information regarding examination through phone or the letter and it is mandatory duty of the complainant, when complaint himself admitted that, he is the service man. Is it not a duty of complainant to collect the information or have a knowledge in respect of examination. Merely stating that, the time table issued on dtd:26.03.2015 which is after examination, but actually complainant’s examination start from 28.03.2015 not on 26.03.2015 prior to two day as per reply notice given by OPs. If as per complaint’s contention, the time table has been served on him, he could have appeared the examination there is no any bar to attend, because prior to 28.03.2015 and complaints examination start from 28.03.2015 i.e. first paper sociology, as per time table which has produced by the complainant himself and it revels the date of same. The complainant has failed to substantiate why, he has not appeared and for what reason the complainant not attend though there was a time, it is apparently shows that, complaint  might have not interest to appear the examination, if the complainant is having curiosity or interest to complete B.A., he would have definitely attend and give the examination and later he could have sought the relief if he aggrieved in respect of time table. But, without appearing or attending the examination, It is evident that, the complainant is not interested to proceed with the case and produced material document, but the complainant has failed to putforth by explaining to this forum that, the act of the OPs in respect of examination not informing before one month it amounts, to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and mere producing time table, legal notice and reply notice it is not sufficient to hold that, there is a grass deficiency of OPs. Hence, in our consider opinion that, there is no any deficiency.

 

          No dought it is true that, the complainant has complete B.A.I and II, after completion of B.A.II.  Certainly, the complainant has taken admission to B.A.III, but failed to substantiate his case by convincing this Forum and even, this Hon’ble Forum has granted time to hear on maintainability. But, neither complainant nor his Counsel present from the date of complaint till this date to convince the Forum an advance the argument as alleged in the complaint. Even, by perusing the pleadings of complaint, there is no any material document except time table and legal notice, mere time table and legal notice contents did not construe that, there is deficiency of service.

 

Even the complainant has failed to prove and establish that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Hence in our considered opinion that, the complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, we answer this point No. 1 & 2 in the negative and proceed to pass the following:    

 

: O R D E R ::

 

 

          For the reasons discussed above, the complaint filed by the complainants U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.

 

          (Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 29^th day of November-2016).

 

 

Sri. A.G.Maldar,     President.

Smt. J.S. Kajagar,    Lady Member.