DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 10 of 3.1.2008<br /> Decided on : 22.4.2008 <br /> <br /> Gurvinder Singh S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh, V.P.O Mehma Sarja, District Bathinda-151201.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1.Chairman of the Board of Governors, IGNOU, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110068.<br /> 2.Regional Director, S.S.C., IGNOU, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110068<br /> 3.Indira Gandhi National Open University, Branch D.R.D.A Complex, G.T. Road, Bathinda.<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Gurvinder Singh complainant in person.<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. N.K Jeet, counsel for opposite party No.3<br /> Opposite parties No. 1& 2 exparte <br /> O R D E R.<br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. On 13.4.2007 complainant had joined certificate in teaching of English course which was started by opposite party No.2. Fee of Rs. 1,300/- was paid. His enrollment number was 070756553. Duration of the course was six months. Examination was to be held in December, 2007. Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) did not despatch study material to him by post at his address except optional paper No. CTE-05. Requests were made by him to it on telephone. Registered letter was also sent but IGNOU paid no heed. Due to this lapse, he could not make preparations for the examination of this course properly. It was required that he should fill up the examination form and send Rs. 50/- as examination fee per paper and late fee of Rs. 1,000/- for examination which was to be conducted in December, 2007. Form was to be sent with study material but it was not sent. He was not responsible for sending the fee and form. Roll number was not sent to him for taking the examination. In thee circumstances, complaint has been preferred by him under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred as the Act) seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay him Rs. 2,00,000/- i.e. Rs. 72,000/- as six month's wait remuneration at the prevailing rate (Rs.12,000/- x 6) (minimum of total emoluments); Rs.72,000/- as remuneration for next six months (Rs.12,000/- x 6) for delay; Rs. 1,000/- spent on making telephone calls to IGNOU during six months, Rs. 10,000/- towards expenses of court fee, typing, copying, travelling allowance, legal advice etc. and Rs. 45,000/- as compensation due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties which caused him irreparable loss, social and mental aches as he was already mentally sick.<br /> 2. Registered A.D post notices were issued to opposite parties No. 1 & 2 on 11.1.2008. Till 13.2.2008, neither registered letters nor A.D.s were received back. 30 days had expired. In these circumstances, they were deemed to have been duly served. No-one appeared on their behalf. Accordingly, they have been proceeded against exparte.<br /> 3. Opposite party No. 3 filed reply taking legal objections that complainant has no locus-standi or cause of action to file the present complaint and this Form has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint as it has been specifically provided in the prospectus of the IGNOU that only the courts at New Delhi/Delhi shall have the jurisdiction in disputes concerning the admission and other university matters. On merits, it denies that complainant had joined the course through it. It has been pleaded that study material is despatched by IGNOU directly to the students. Complainant did not approach it about his grievance, if any. It further denies that complainant is entitled to any compensation or there is any deficiency in service on its part. It does not admit the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Gurvinder Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.1), affidavits (Ex.C.2 & Ex.C.3) of S/Sh. Jora Singh & Triptal respectively, photocopy of U.P.C (Ex.C.4), photocopy of cutting from the newspaper (Ex.C.5), photocopy of OPD Slip (Ex.C.6), photocopy of B.P.L Card (Ex.C.7), photocopy of Form A (Ex.C.8), photocopies of pages No. 5 & 125 of Prospectus (Ex.C.9 & Ex.C.10), photocopy of Identity Card (Ex.C.11), photocopy of important information (Ex.C.12), photocopy of receipt (Ex.C.13), photocopies of letters (Ex.C.14 to Ex.C.16).<br /> 5. On behalf of opposite party No.3, reliance has been placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Vijay Zade, Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development), Bathinda.<br /> 6. One of the objections taken by opposite party No.3 is that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as it has been specifically provided in the prospectus of IGNOU that only the courts at New Delhi/Delhi shall have the jurisdiction in disputes concerning the admission and other University matters. For this, there is bald affidavit of Sh. Vijay Zade on behalf of opposite party No.3. Complete prospectus of IGNOU has not been placed and proved on record by opposite party No.3. Admittedly, opposite party No. 3 is the branch of IGNOU at Bathinda. In these circumstances, when IGNOU has its branch office at Bathinda, this Forum is well within its right to entertain and try this complaint.<br /> 7. Principal grievances of the complainant are that IGNOU did not despatch him study material except optional paper CTE-05 and on that account, he could not prepare for the examinations. Blank form for submitting the same for examinations was to be sent by it alongwith the study material, but it was not delivered to him. In these circumstances, he was not responsible for sending the fee and form. Roll number for taking the examination was not issued to him.<br /> 8. Burden to prove deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it as per observations of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. K.L.M Royal Dutch Airline and another-2000(1)CLT-33. In view of it, it is the duty of the complainant to establish the deficiency by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence. Deficiency cannot be presumed on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Affidavits of the complainant, Jora Singh and Triptal which are Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.3 prove that complainant had got admission in CTE course, but they are not sufficient to prove the alleged deficiencies on the part of the opposite parties. Complainant himself is relying upon Ex.C.12 which is a copy of the Important Information by the IGNOU. It reads as under :-<br /> “The University sends study materials and assignments, wherever prescribed, to the students by registered post and if a student does not receive the same for any reason whatsoever, the University shall not be held responsible for that.<br /> In case a student wants to have assignments, he/she can obtain a copy of the same from the Study Centre or Regional Centre or may download it from the IGNOU website-www.ignou.ac.in. <br /> The students are specifically instructed to send Examination Forms to the Registrar (SR&E) only and to no other place. Examination form may be submitted online during prescribed dates. They are also advised to submit the Registration/Re-registration forms only at the respective Regional Centres and nowhere else. If any student sends the Registration/Re-registration Forms, Examination Forms at wrong places and thereby misses the scheduled date and consequently a semester/year, he/she will have no claim on the University for regularization.” <br /> 9. Complainant sent an application to the Regional Director, Student Service Centre, New Delhi, copy of which is Ex.C.14. Another letter was sent by him to the Course Co-Ordinator (CTE), IGNOU Regional Centre, Khanna, copy of which is Ex.C.15. As per his version, study material except Optional paper No. CTE-05was not despatched to him. Regional Director of Students Centre, IGNOU sent letter, copy of which is Ex.C.13, to the complainant intimating that study material has been mailed to all eligible learners. He was further advised to look for the same at his post office. All the official acts performed by the public servants in the discharge of their public duties are presumed to be correct. When it is so, how does it lie in the mouth of the complainant that remaining study material except optional paper No. CTE-05 was not received by him. Moreover, as per Ex.C.12, in case a student wants to have assignments, he/she can obtain a copy of the same from the Study Centre or Regional Centre or may download it from the IGNOU web site- www.ignou.ac.in. IGNOU has its branch at Bathinda. There is no material on the record that complainant ever approached opposite party No. 3 at Bathinda with his grievances. At the risk of repetition, it is again mentioned that complainant is placing reliance on Ex.C.12. Even if it is taken that complainant did not receive the study material etc. for any reason whatsoever, University cannot be held responsible for it. Rather there is lapse on his part for not contacting the Branch/Study Centre of IGNOU at Bathinda. Complete copy of the prospectus has not been placed and proved on record by the complainant. As is clear from Ex.C.9, learners were required to fill in the Term-end Examination form available in the Programme Guide and at the Regional Centres, Study Centres and SR&E Division (IGNOU headquarters). It is not the case of the complainant that Programme Guide was not available with him or was not supplied. Even if it is taken that it was not available with him, he could contact Study Centre of IGNOU at Bathinda for collecting examination form which could also be submitted by him online through IGNOU web site. Since complainant is relying upon Ex.C.9, he was well aware about the last date for sending the examination form. When he did not submit the form for taking the examination alongwith the requisite fee etc., no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties can be inferred. In such situation, he could not expect roll number for appearing in the examination.<br /> 10. As a result of our forgoing discussion, we are of the view that complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. When it is so, there is no question of harassment to him merely on the ground that he has placed on record one prescription slip, copy of which is Ex.C.6, pertaining to some disease from which he was suffering.<br /> 11. In the result, complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 22.4.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />