SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant has filed this complaint U/s12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking to get an order directing opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and financial loss caused to her due to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
Complainant’s case is that the complainant was got admission in the PG course during 2015. The complainant is a 75% handicapped student who is having no effective hands and she written the examination by her leg. Thus the complainant attends the exam in 2016 March and even though the complainant attend the examination with much confidence complainant was failed in two papers. So the complainant filed an application before the university requesting for revaluation of failed papers. But university denied the request and complainant was forced to approach the High court and obtain an order. Thus on the basis of said order the complainant submitted an application before the university syndicate. But even though the application was made university conducted a slow case. So the complainant was forced to apply for the supplementary examination and was attested by the complainant. Even though the supplementary result was published the revaluation result was not published by the university. The revaluation request was allowed on 12/04/2017 but the result was published on 03/02/2018 after 8 months. Further, submitted that the complainant applied for a copy of the answer sheet for verification the university denied the copy without any reason. For awarding grace mark also the university takes an irresponsible attitude. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence this complaint.
After receiving notice, OP entered appearance through counsel and filed written version contesting the consumer complaint. The contentions stated in the version are the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. OP denied the entire allegation raised by the complainant against them. The application of the complainant for revaluation was rejected because the statutory regulations and rules of the university in respect of the post graduation courses stipulate that where double valuation is followed revaluation is not permitted. Further the explanation for issuing the result of revaluation on 03/02/2018 is the complainant passed in both the revaluation papers and she voluntarily appeared in the supplementary examination and got passed. On getting the revaluation result, the University decided to consider the revaluation result as her first chance and the supplementary examination as improvement chance to get better benefit to the student and the decision was communicated to the complainant on 03/02/2018. Further contended with regard to rejection of copy application of answer sheet is that before submitting such an application, she had filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court and hence University had to produce those papers before the Hon’ble Court and since the matter became subjudice, OP could not grant the answer sheet to the complainant. With regard to another grievance of non-granting the grace mark, OP contended that immediately on getting grace application with all the medical documents, OP had granted grace marks. OP1 contended that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
Both parties led evidence. Complainant has filed her chief-affidavit and documents. She has been examined as Pw1 and marked the documents as Ext.A1 to A8. Pw1 was subjected to cross-examination for the OP. On behalf of OP, the section officer of Kannur University, Examination section Mr. Chandran V P has filed his chief-affidavit and documents. He has been examined as Dw1 and the documents have been marked as Ext.B1 to B10. Dw1 also has been subjected to cross-examination by the complainant.
After that the learned counsel of both parties filed their written argument notes.
The complainant’s allegation against the OP that she is a handicapped student having 75% disability who is having no effective hands and she writes the examination by her leg. She has MA PG student of Krishnamenon Memmorial women’s college during 2015. She appeared for examination in 2016 March. She failed in two papers ie the Romantics and the Victorians. She filed application requesting for revaluation of the failed subjects but the university denied the request. There after she approached Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and as per the order of Hon’ble High Court, complainant applied for revaluation.
It is further alleged that though the application for revaluation was filed on 16/08/2017 after paying the required fee, the result was given obtaining higher marks only after 8 months ie on 03/02/2018 after filing of this complaint. In the mean time she applied for supplementary examination of those subjects and attended the examination and got passed.
Another allegation is that when she applied for a copy of her answer sheet of those subjects for verification that was also denied by t the OP, without any reason. Complainant further alleged that of rewarding grace mark for disabled students also take an irresponsible attitude by OP.
On these allegations, complaisant filed this complaint seeking the reliefs as prayed in the complaint.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the OP, that the application of the complainant for revaluation was rejected because the statutory regulations and rules of the university in respect of the post graduation courses stipulate that where double valuation is followed, revaluation is not permitted. Further the explanation for issuing the result of revaluation on 03/02/2018 is that the complainant passed in both the revaluation papers and she voluntarily appeared in the supplementary examination and got passed. On getting the revaluation result, the University decided to consider the revaluation result as her first chance and the supplemental examination as improvement chance to get better benefit to the student and the decision was communicated to the complainant on 03/02/2018. Further contended with regard to rejection of copy application of answer sheet is that before submitting such an application, she had filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court and hence University had to produce those papers before the Hon’ble Court and since the matter became subjudice, they could not grant the answer sheet to the complainant. With regard to another grievance of non-granting the grace mark, OP contended that immediately on getting grace application with all the medical documents, OP had granted grace marks.
With regard to 1st allegation of the complainant, OP’s version is that OP could not entertain the complainant’s request for revaluation in accordance with the norms and regulations applicable to University. In order to establish the said contention OP has submitted Regulation of Kannur University GP-2014 marked as Ext.B1. On perusal of Ext.B1, clause 15.1 specifically stated that there shall be double validation system of answer books and also stated that there shall be no provision of revaluation.
Here it is pertinent to be noticed that while existing such a provision, the Hon’ble High court of Kerala, in a writ petition WP© No:1722/2017 filed by a student, held that revaluation has been permitted. Further while existing such an order of Hon’ble High court against the University, it further denied the revaluation application of the complainant raising the provision in the regulation. Since OP, did not receive the revaluation request of the complainant, especially a 75% handicapped student writes examination by leg, had to approach Hon’ble High Court for filing writ petition for obtaining an order for revaluation and had to attend supplementary examinations and further to face other hardship, such as applying for copy of answer sheet etc. Further OP contended that the reason for not entertained that application of the complainant, that before filing such an application for answer sheets, she had already filed writ petition before the hon’ble High court and since OP would have to produce those papers before the Hon’ble High Court. Though OP could not give copy of a answer papers Ext.A5 shows that her application was received on 27/03/2017 and Ext.A6 shows that OP had considered the application of the complainant and directed to remit Rs.400/-(Rs.200/- for each paper) as per Chelan. Complainant alleged t ha when she tried to remit Chelan for Rs.4,00/- as per Ext.A6, that was denied by the OP without any reason and did not furnish copy of answer sheet. It can be revealed from the documents produced before us, the Hon’ble High court prounced the order in the writ petition of the complainant was on 12/04/2017, Ext. A6 instruction to remit Chelan for getting copy of answer sheet, was issued on 22/04/2017. That means OP could have given copy of answer paper to the complainant. Further there is a delay of 8 month in publishing the result of revaluation result after obtaining the revaluation request. According to them, they took 4 months period to comply the formalities of publishing result after obtaining result of those papers from the syndicate on 26/08/2017. It is evident that the result was published only on 03/02/2018 after filing of this consumer complaint.
From the overall evidence ie oral as well as documentary, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. OP could have allow the request of the complainant for the revaluation of the two failed subjects in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the wp© 1722/2017. Then the all the further consequences faced by the complainant (75% disabled) could have been avoided. Hence there is gross negligence and unfair practice and also deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence a complainant has to be compensated by the OP for her physical and mental hardship suffered.
In the result complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to give Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings of this case. OP shall comply the order within one month after receipt of certified copy of this order. Failing which the awarded amount Rs.1,00,000/- carries interest @ 7% per annum from the date of order till realization. Complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provision of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts.
A1- Copy of Disability certificate of complainant dated 13/02/2008
A2- Copy of High court order dated 12/04/2017
A3-Memo issued by OP
A4- copy of revaluation application and Chelan dated 16/08/2017
A5- Copy of the application for answer sheet dated 27/03/2017
A6-Memo from OP to remit the fees (right to information)
A7-Application to College principal for grace mark
A8-Revaluation result dated 03/02/2018
B1-Kannur University KUCBSS PG 2014 No.Regulation
B2-W P dated 12/04/2017
B3-Application dated 23/07/2017 Right to information
B4-Reply dated 22/04/2017 RTI Act
B5-OP issued memo to Complainant dated 16/08/2017
B6-Chalan original dated 16/08/2017
B6(a)- Answer sheet revaluation application dated 16/08/2017
B7- Kannur University issued Acd D3/314/2016 Dated 18/08/2017
B8-Letter submitted to Govt. women’s college principal Kannur by complainant dated 03/05/2017
B9- Memo copy issued by Assistant Registrar to complainant dated 03/02/2018
B10- Order dated 19/07/2017
Pw1-Complainant
Dw1-Chandran V P- Witness of OP
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
