3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Department of Technical Education with the prayer to: a) An
order for payment of scholarship Rs.56,700/- to the complainant for the year of 2017-18 described in the above paras of the complaint, alongwith accrued rate of interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its payment to till the actual date of realization. b)Special compensation for the mental pain, harassment and pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. c) Cost of complaint. May kindly be passed in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Pawan Kumar, Ex.C-1 - SC & BC Post Metric Scholarship, Ex.C-2 – Welfare of Scheduled Caste & backward Classes Department, Ex.C-3 email dated May 18.2019, Ex.C-4 – email, Ex.C-5 – legal notice, Ex.C-6 – postal receipt, Ex.C-7 legal notice dated 16.01.2020, Ex.C-8 – letter dated 14.2.2020, Ex.C-9 - letter dated 04.12.2019, Ex.C-10 – legal notice, Ex.C-11 – postal receipt.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly
agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 affidavit of Shri Sudeep Kumar, Sr. Lecturer, Govt. Polytechnic for Women, Sector-8, Faridabad, Ex.R-1 - Welfare of Scheduled Caste & backward Classes Department, Ex.R-2 - SC & BC Post Metric Scholarship, Ex.R-3 to 5– not readable.
Shri Admit Kumar, counsel for opposite party No.2 has made a statement that reply already filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 be read as evidenc eof opposite party No.2. Therefore, evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2 has been closed vide order dated 23.02.2022.
6. In this case, the complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer to pass an order for payment of scholarship rs.56,700/- to the complainant for the year 2017-18described in the above paras of the complaint, alongiwth accrued rate of interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its payment to till the actual
date of realization. It is evident from Ex.R-2 that Diector Welfare of scheduled Castes & Backward Classes Department, Haryana again invited the applications for Post Matric Scholarship for the session 2017-18 on the department website from 13.03.2018 to 26.03.2018 by giving an another chance to the students who could not apply earlier. It is evident from Ex.R-3 that Director welfar eof Scheduled Caste & backward Classes Department, Haryana then again invited the applications for Post Matric Scholarship for the session 2017-18 on the department website from 27.08.2018 to 10.09.2018 by giving one more chance to the students who could not apply earlier. The complainant Shri Pawan Kumar did not complete his applciation upto 10.09.2018 on the portal for further processing of Post Matric Scholarship for the session 2017-18 on the departmental website during the period (i.e. 20.11.2017 to 31.12.2017, 13.03.2018 to 26.03.2018 & 27.08.2018 to 10.09.2018) on which the applciations were invited on the portal for session 2017-18.
7. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the candidate did not complete his applciaiton on the portal for further processing upto the closing date, due to this reason the candidate was not eligible for the PMS Scholarship for the session 2017-18 vide Ex.R-3 during the period (20.11.2017 to 31.12.2017, 13.03.2018 to 26.03.2018 & 27.08.2018 to 10.09.2018) on which the applications were invited on the portal for session 2017-18. Hence, non completion of application by the complainant himself on the online portal has resulted into non disbursal of Post Matric Scholarship claim for the claim session 2017-18. The complainant himself is responsible for this lapse. Further, the Post Matric Scholarship cannot be granted when the processing/closing date of application for claim nsession 2017-18 was 10.9.2018.
Keeping in view of the above submissions, the Commission is of the opinion that no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties have been proved. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 31.10.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.