BEFORE Tn//HE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 507/2001 Filed on 14/12/2001
Dated: 15..10..2010
Complainant:
Amal Singh. S., Thekke Thamaravila, Thekke Bunglow, Amaravila – P.O., Neyyattinkara Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 122.
(By Adv. J.R. Sanudas)
Opposite parties:
Chairman & Managing Director, SBT., Head Office, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram.
Branch Manager, SBT., Neyyattinkara Branch, Neyyattinkara _ P.O., 695 121.
(By Adv. G.S. Kalkura)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 01..03..2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 16..08..2010 the Forum on 15..10..2010 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant got admission for the course of Health Inspector in the All India Institution of Self Government, Belgaum for the year 2000 – 2001, that the final examination was scheduled to be conducted during November 2001, that complainant was advised by the institution to submit the application form, for the Examination with the required fee of Rs.250/- by Demand Draft, so as to reach the same to their office before 26/09/2001 without late fee, that complainant obtained a D.D from the 2nd opposite party on 19/9/2001 for an amount of Rs. 250/- in favour of the above institution payable at State Bank of India, Belgaum Branch, that complainant sent his application duly filled along with all required records on 19/09/2001 which was received by the said institution on 24/09/2001. It is submitted by the complainant that he had prepared for the examination while so he received a letter dated 12/10/2001 from the above institution intimating that the application for the exam was rejected due to the reason that the D.D was defective as the name and code number of the bank was not mentioned, that the institution could not encash the D.D amount and the said D.D was returned to the complainant, which put him to a heavy loss of a period upto the next examination, that the said situation was only because of the wilfull negligence and deficiency in service of the 2nd opposite party, that complainant has lost one year in his academic and career life, that complainant is also put to financial loss as well as mental strain and agony. It is further submitted by the complainant that the Health Inspector Course is a high prospective course which would have enabled the complainant to get an appointment in the Government Service in Kerala immediately after the result of the Exam and the complainant's chance of appointment was delayed. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation and cost.
2. Opposite party filed version contending that complainant has no locus standi to file such a complaint, that complaint is barred by principles of estoppel acquiscence and waiver, that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, that complainant has not cared to implead the Educational Institution under whom he claimed to have undergone the Educational Course, that State Bank of India, Belgaum Branch is also a necessary party without whose presence the complaint cannot be fully, finally properly adjudicated upon. It is true that complainant had purchased a Demand Draft for Rs.250/- on 19/09/2001 and 2nd opposite party was not made aware of the purpose for which the D.D was purchased at the time when the draft was issued, that when the Bank was informed about the return of the draft 2nd opposite party immediately took up the matter with the Institute in whose favour the draft was issued vide their letter dated 30/10/2001. Opposite parties also sent a D.D for Rs.350/- in favour of the institute drawn on the State Bank of India, Belgaum Branch, but the institute did not care to respond to any of the letters, that the Bank had taken all steps properly to rectify the irregularity. The allegation that complainant had lost one year academic and career life is also incorrect. Complainant himself has admitted that the alleged loss of terms was only 6 months. The compensation claimed is totally without any basis, it is highly exaggerated. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
Whether complainant is entitled to compensation and cost, if so, at what amount?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and has marked Exts. P1 to P11. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. D1 to D10.
4. Points (i) & (ii) : There is no point in dispute that complainant obtained a Demand Draft from the 2nd opposite party on 19..09..2001 for an amount of Rs. 250/- in favour of All India Institution of Self Government, Belgaum payable at State Bank of India, Belgaum Branch. There is no point in dispute that the said Institution could not encash the said D.D due to the reason that the D.D was defective, as the name and code number of the Bank was not mentioned therein. It has been the case of the complainant that he was put to heavy loss of a period upto the next examination due to the action of the opposite parties. According to him he joined the Health Inspector Course in anticipation that he would get an appointment of the Government Service in Kerala immediately after the result of the Examination. As a result of the rejection of his application for the examination due to Demand Draft being defective, his chance of appointment was delayed. His evidence consists of his oral testimony and Exts. P1 to P11. Ext. P1 is the copy of the Identity Card issued by All India Institute of Local Self Government, Belgaum. Ext. P2 is the copy of the D.D dated 19/9/2001 issued by 2nd opposite party for Rs. 250/- in favour of All India Institute of Local Self Government. Ext. P3 is the copy of Exam Guidelines issued by All India Institute of Local Self Government dated 10/09/2001. Ext. P4 is the letter dated 12/10/2001 of All India Institute of Local Self Government addressed to the complainant informing him about the rejection of his exam application. On perusal of Ext. P4 it is seen that the reason for rejection are: Defective Demand Draft, Require issuing Branch, Name and Code numbers. It is seen from Ext. P4 that original D.D dated 19/9/2001 was returned to the complainant. Ext. P5 is the copy of the Advocate Notice addressed to the 2nd opposite party dated 30/10/2001. Ext. P6 series are postal receipt and acknowledgement card. Ext. P7 is the reply from the 2nd opposite party. Ext. P8 series would include the letter addressed to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party dated 30/10/2001. Ext. P9 series would include a letter from 2nd opposite party to the complainant informing that 2nd opposite party has taken up the matter with All India Institute of Self Government, Belgaum to enable him to write the Health Inspector Course Examination. Ext. P10 is the counterfoil to DD Requisition Slip. Ext. P11 is the PSC Bulletin. According to opposite party when the Bank was informed about the return of the draft they took up the matter with the Institute in whose favour that the draft was issued vide letter dated 30/10/2001. It has also been contended by opposite parties that they sent D.D for Rs.350/- in favour of the said Institute but they did not care to respond to any of the opposite parties' letters. Opposite parties evidence consists of oral testimony of the 2nd opposite party and Exts. D1 to D10. Ext. D1 is the copy of the letter dated 30/10/2001 to the Registrar, All India Institute of Self Government, Belgaum requesting them to allow the student to write the examination. Ext. D2 is the copy of the letter addressed to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party informing him that they will make all arrangements to enable him to write the examination if he co-operates with them. Ext. D3 is the copy of the letter from the 2nd opposite party to State Bank of India, Belgaum. Ext. D4 is the copy of the Telegram to Belgaum dated 2/11/2001. Ext. D5 is the copy of another Telegram dated 19/9/2001 to Belgaum. Ext. D6 is the copy of the letter from 2nd opposite party to State Bank of India, Belgaum dated 2/11/2001. Evidently, by Exts. P2 & P4 complainant's application for exam was rejected by the said Institute due to defective D.D issued by the opposite parties. There is no dispute on that point, complainant could not appear for the examination due to the action of the opposite parties. Undoubtedly, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for which complainant would certainly be entitled to compensation. He has lost one year vide Ext. P4. It is stated in Ext. P4 that he could appear for the said Examination in May 2002. Inview of the foregoing discussions and evidence available on records we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met if complainant is given a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are jointly or severally liable to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation along with cost of Rs.2,000/-. Opposite parties shall pay the said amount within 2 months from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the said amount will carry interest @ 12%.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15th day of October, 2010.
G. SIVAPRASAD PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI. A.,
MEMBER.
S.K. SREELA,
MEMBER.
ad.
O.P.No.507/2001
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : Amal Singh. S
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Copy of ID Card issued by All India Institute of Local Self Govt., Belgaum.
P2 : Copy of the DD dated 19/9/2001 issued by 2nd opposite party for Rs.250/-
P3 : Copy of Exam Guidelines issued by All India Institute of Local Self Govt.dated 10/9/2001.
P4 : Letter dated 12/10/2001 of All India Institute Local Self Govt addressed to the complainant.
P5 : Copy of the Advocate notice addressed to the 2nd opp. Party dated 30/10/2001.
P6 : Series are postal receipts and acknowledgement card
P7 : Reply from the 2nd opposite party.
P8 : Letter addressed to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party dated 30/10/2001.
P9 : Series would include a letter from 2nd opposite party to the complainant.
P10 : The counterfoil to DD Requisition slip
P11 : The PSC Bullettin.
III. Opposite parties' witness:
DW1 : Rajasekharan Nair
IV. Opposite parties' documents:
D1 : Copy of the letter dated 30/10/2001
D2 : Copy of the letter addressed to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party.
D3 : Copy of the letter from the 2nd opposite party to SBI, Belgaum.
D4 : " Telegram to Belgaum dated 2/11/2001
D5 : " another Telegram dated 19/09/2001 to Belgaum
D6 : " letter from 2nd opposite party to SBI, Belgaum dated 2/11/2001
D7 : " letter dated 2/11/2001
D8 : " letter dated 2/11/2001
D9 : Copy of letter dated 2/11/2001 addressed to the complainant.
D10 : Copy of letter dated 12/11/2001.
PRESIDENT
