Date of Filing: 01.03.2016 Date of Final Order: 13-06-2017
Smt. Runa Ganguly, Member.
The case of the Complainant in brief as can be gathered from the record is that the Complainant took admission in Success Educare, Cooch Behar i.e O.P. on being motivated by their lucrative advertisement. The O.P. claimed itself a district centre of Karnataka open University. After Completion of M.A Part-II final Examination the result was published after one year and Complainant noticed that even after appearing all the examination she was marked as absent in 6th paper. The Complainant then made contact with the head of the study centre for rectification of mark sheet and O.P. assured to rectify the same shortly. Though even after elapsing two and half year no positive result yet received by the Complainant .
Putting all the above allegations the Complainant was at a loss by not getting the M.A Part II Mark sheet also she was deprived from appearing in school service Examination and praying for relief and compensation as incorporated in the prayer portion of the Complainant.
The O.P has contested the case contending inter-alia that the present case is not maintainable in its present for as well as in law. The O.P. further contested that the present Complainant is not a consumer and the O.P. did not provide any service as described in C.P. Act.
This O.P contended that the success Educare is the Sub Centre of Rekha Institute of Higher Studies, Madhyamgram, ( RIHS) and the same is the Global Partner of the Karnataka State Open University ( KSOU), Mysore. Thus, It is the only duty of present O.P. to take the admission fees and other relevant documents from willing student and sent the same to the KSOU for admission in the University. Thereafter KSOU contacts and supervise the whole examination presses of the student and after completion of the exam., the KSOU takes all the answer scripts and published result and send the mark sheet to the students through their sub-centre. This O.P. also acted accordingly and handed over the mark sheet to the Complainant without any delay. Thus, no question of admission in study centre also it has no deficiency in service. Furthermore, the fact of require higher percentage of marks is totally vague and baseless. Moreover, this case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party . Publication of result is totally depends open KSOU this O.P. has only, liability to hand over the mark sheet to the students after getting it from KSOU.
The Present Complainant did not appear in sixth paper for which mark sheet shows that the Complainant was absent in said paper for which this O.P. has no liability and has nothing to do in this regard.
It is denied by the O.P. that it took responsibility for rectification of the mark sheet as alleged by the Complainant that if she received the mark sheet in due time she had ample scope to get a job in school and she was deprived from getting the secured job only for deficiency in service of O.P.
Further averment of the O.P is that being a low percentage holder in degree course and without having B.Ed. degree this Complainant is not entitled to appear in SSC examination for which no chance to get job as school teacher. Hence, the compensation as she claimed its this ground vague and baseless.
This O.P. has no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of this case with cost.
In the light of foregoing discussion, the following moot points came up for discussion to reach final decision.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant Consumer as per provision under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the O.P any deficiency in service as by not settling the claim of the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully and perused the documents made available in the record. Perused also the evidence on affidavit filed by the parties and heard the argument at a length advanced by the parties.
Point No.1
The Complainant with a desire to obtain Master degree in English took admission in Karnataka University through the opposite Party and make some payment to the O.P. for getting proper service. Thus, the relation so established from the record we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant is a Consumer as per C.P. Act 1986.
Point No.2
The place of business of the O.P. is situated within this district and the complaint value of the present case is far less than the prescribed limit for which this forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present case.
Point No.3 & 4
Evidently, the Complainant took admission in success Educare, a centre of Karnataka Open University for obtaining M.A. degree in English in the year 2012 from Karnataka open University.
It is the case of the Complainant that after Completion of M.A Part II Examination the result was published after one year and it was shown in the mark sheet that the Complainant absent in sixth paper though the Complainant appeared in all papers. Due to negligence act of the O.P. the Complainant deprived from appearing School Service Commission.
It is the case of the O.P. that the Complainant is neither a consumer of this O.P. nor this O.P. provides any service to the Complainant. The Complainant took admission in the Karnataka open University but he did not make the University as a necessary party for which this case is bad for mis-joindder of necessary party.
It appears from the documents made available in the record is that the O.P. i.e. Success Educare received Rs.10,000/- for completion of the course. The Complainant received mark sheet of part 1. No dispute is there but the mark sheet of part II clearly goes to show that the Complainant was absent on 6th paper. The mark sheet also does not bear any signature of the authority of the University . There is also no logo of University in the said mark sheet.
The Complainant successfully completed part I Exam. But when she noticed Absent in the sixth paper of Part II Exam. Mark sheet she became so astonished and make several contact with O.P. but all efforts were in vain.
The Ld. Agent for the O.P. vehemently argued that the publication of result is fully depends upon the University under which the Complainant took admission. The O.P. has also taken plea that it is mere an information and counselling centre as certified by the Rekha Institute of Higher Study and it has only duty to take admission of the willing candidate. That certificate is valid up to 3 yrs. from the date of issuance.
On perusal the said certificate in Xeroxed filed by the Ld. Agent for the O.P. it appears that there is no date of issue of the certificate. For the sake of argument, if this O.P.has only duty to take admission then why and how it conducted examination and distributed of marksheet to the students. The Complainant hired service on consideration from the O.P. but O.P. failed to give proper service. Furthermore, when dispute in the marksheet appeared the O.P. tried to shift its liability on the University and the Rekha Institute. Fact is that, the Complainant took admission on good faith in the Success Educare but deprived from getting proper service. She appeared in the examination but did not get proper marksheet. She has no direct nexus with the university or the Rekha Institute and make full payment to the O.P. and the O.P. received the same. Thus, in no way of the O.P. evade its liability.
The O.P. cited a Judgement : Maharshi Dayananda University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, Civil Appeal No.6807 of 2008, decided on 19.07.2010 where in Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that Board is not a Service provider and a student who takes an examination is not a consumer and consequently, complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board. This case decision is not applicable in this case.
On the basis of said judgement the Ld. Agent for the O.P. vehemently argued that the Complainant is not a Consumer also the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. We have carefully considered the argument advanced by both the parties and have4 examined the record. It appears that the O.P. is neither a Board nor a University but a Study Centre which carrying on business by taking admission of the willing student by attracting them with lucrative advertisement. The O.P. was providing a service to the Complainant in lieu of fee paid and as such, the Complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d). It is already discussed in the point No. 1.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant cited a judgement of Hon’ble National Commission. Considered.
It is pertinent to mention that at present mainly in our district various Study Centres are mushrooming day by day with advertisement to conduct various course in various university throughout India. But the real picture is that, in many cases they do not file any case against the authority. The Hon.ble National Commission pleased to pass a judgement reported in 2015 (1) CPR 611 (NC) that “Fictitious educational institutions must be dealt with iron hand”
In the present case in hand the O.P. had the duty to take proper step for issuance of correct mark sheet in the name of the Complainant by the University as the O.P. took admission of the Complainant with an assurance to give proper service. Furthermore, the Complainant by not getting proper mark sheet of Master degree failed to avail opportunity to apply for a suitable job.
Be that as it may, in the light of foregoing discussion and the facts and circumstances of the present case it seems that the O.P. in this case in the name of imparting education played a vague role that is nothing but unfair trade practice also by not rendering proper service comes under the purview of deficiency in service. Thus, the Complainant must be compensated. In our view Rs.1,00,000/- will met the justice
All the points are answered in affirmative and accordingly the complaint succeeds but in part.
The Complainant praying for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- i.e. in our view too much. In our view, by opening unregistered study centre and playing with the career of the general students should be dealt in a very strict manner and exemplary damages should be awarded so that one can think a moment before opening this type of study centre.
Hence, It is Ordered,
That the present case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The O.P. is hereby directed to make payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation for their deficiency in service that caused mental pain and agony of the Complainant.
The entire order shall be complied with by the O.P. within 45 days i/d the entire amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. till its full realisation.
A plain copy of this order be made available and be sent to each of the parties free of cost by registered post with A/D forthwith as per rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
