D.O.F: 21/08/2013
D.O.O: 21/11/2018
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.192/2013
Dated this, the 21th day of November 2018
PRESENT:
SRI.ROY PAUL :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
Mr. Lahak, Aged 38 Years.
S/o Aboobacker,
R/at Thalangara Manzil,P.O. Thalangara : Complainant
Kasaragod -671122
(Adv: Mohanan Nambiar.M)
1. Dhakeerath English Medium Higher Secondary School,
M.D. Nagar, P.O. Thalangara
Kasaragod-671122 : Opposite Parties
Rep: by its Principal.
2. The Manager,
Dhakeerath English Medium Higher Secondary School,
M.D. Nagar, P.O. Thalangara
Kasaragod-671122
(Adv: Maniamma.P.P for OP1&2)
ORDER
SRI.ROY PAUL :PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to refund Rs. 10,000/- with compensation and cost to the complainant.
The gist of the complaint is that:-
The complainant’s minor son who was a student of opposite party institution secured high marks in S.S.L.C exam in the year 2012/2013. Thereafter he applied for Plus 1 admission at opposite party institution. Due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties he was not called for counselling nor informed his rank in status in the admission process. Though the son of complainant is entitled for plus1admission on merit quota, due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties he has constrained to get admission on management quota by paying Rs. 10,000/- as compulsory contribution to the opposite party institution. The merit seat of the complainant’s son has allotted to another student who is a close relative of the opposite party. Due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties compliant has suffered much hardship, mental agony, loss of money and time. Hence the complaint.
The opposite parties entered appearance before the Fora and submitted their written version contending that the son of the complainant was a student in opposite party institution and secured high marks in SSLC and applied for Plus 1 admission on merit is true and correct. But they denied about the allegation that he was not called for counselling and rank status was not informed etc. The opposite parties also denied the statement about the compulsory contribution of Rs.10, 000/- paid etc. The allegation of the complainant that the merit seat of the son was allotted to another student who is a close relative of the opposite party etc is also false. Along with the plus 1 application the son of the complainant produced one self addressed stamped memo card also as prescribed by the opposite party institution. After processing the application the son of the complainant was placed as rank no 74 in biology, 82 in computer science and 76 in commerce. The same was published on notice board also prior to interview scheduled on 12/06/2013, the interview was also intimated through the self addressed card submitted by the student. The alleged non receipt of the intimation is not due to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The interviews were held on 12/06/2013 and 18/06/2013 for the merit quota . After closing of merit quota admission, the son of the complainant verified the rank list in the notice board and approached the opposite party for admission and took admission in management quota. Thus he has joined to the course and classes started. There was no complaint for them during that period. The admission process is very transparent; 40% of students will be admitted from open merit, 40% from a management quota, 12 % from scheduled cast and 8% from scheduled tribes. The opposite party institution is a charitable institution, the management quota students also has to pay government prescribed fees only; no other contribution as alleged. The opposite party has not collected Rs. 10,000/-from the complainant as alleged. They never denied the seat to any eligible students. There is no cause of action against the opposite party. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Complaint may be dismissed with cost
On the basis of the rival contention of the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration
- Whether there is any deficiency service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complaint is entitled for the any reliefs?
- Reliefs and cost?
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of Pw1, Pw2 and Exts A1 to A4 documents marked on his side. Opposite party adduced evidence through Dw1 and Ext B1 to B6 also marked.
ISSUE NO: 1
The complainant adduced evidence by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying in the contention in the version. He was cross examined Pw1 by the opposite party and he relied on Ext A1 to A4 documents also substantiate to his case. According to him the son of the complainant was eligible for merit quota admission for plus 1 course in opposite party institution. The opposite party through their version also admitted that he was placed in their rank list as eligible for admission on merit .but due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties he could not obtain merit seats. Hence he was constrained to get admission on management quota by paying Rs .10, 000/- as compulsory contribution. Due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered much hardship, mental agony, loss of time and money. Another witness from the side of the complainant was examined as Pw2 also. According toPw2 during that period he has not served any interview card to the son of the complainant as the postman of that locality, from the opposite party institution.
The opposite party adduced evidence through Dw1, according to Dw1 he was the Principal of the opposite parties school during that period. As per Dw1 the intimation of the interview was sent to the students in the self addressed card produced by him. But the student didn’t appear for the interview on 12/06/2013 or 18/06/2013. Thus the merit admissions become closed. As per another memo card issued from the school he has appeared and took admission on management quota. There was no complaint for them during that period. The school has not collected Rs. 10,000/- as contribution from the complainant as alleged in the complaint. The Ext B1 to B6 are the rank list published during that period. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
On perusal of the pleadings, documents and evaluation of the evidence tendered before the Fora we hold that admittedly the son of the complainant was eligible for admission on Merit Seat. But the admission given to him is in management quota. It is also come in evident that the memo card issued from the school for admission in management quota was duly served the student. Then what happened to the first interview card allegedly sent by the opposite party in the same address. The allegation of the complainant is that for admitting one relative student of the management in merit seats the opposite parties deliberately omitted to send the interview card to the son of the complainant. The Pw2 also categorically stated that there was no such interview card for the son of the complainant during that period. Dw1 deposed that he is not sure about the financial dealings in management seat admissions. There is no case for the opposite party that they had sent any further information to the student for the interview on 18/06/2013. From the foregoing discussion and findings we hold it is the duty of the opposite party to intimate the candidates about the interview in proper manner. It is a simple logic that if the interview card was duly served the student for merit seat he would not come for an admission in management quota. It is the right and privilege of the students to get admission is merit seat, if he is eligible for that. So we hold that non intimation of the interview held on 12/06/2013 and 18/06/2013 to the students amounts to deficiency of the service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the issue no 1 found against the opposite parties and answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO: 2 & 3
There is no evidence before the Fora about the alleged payment of the Rs10, 000/- as compulsory contribution. But as discussed above there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered much hardship, mental agony, loss of time and money. We the Fora do considered that the student was constrained to take admission in management quota even though he was eligible for merit quota. We are of the opinion that it is the duty of the opposite party while collecting the application from the student, to ascertain that necessary stamps are affixed in the memo card along with other formalities. Apart to that the opposite parties is duty bound to assure that the despatched interview card could be served to the candidates as required. Under above circumstances we hold that the complainant is entitled for a reasonable compensation from the opposite parties to meet the ends of justice so the opposite parties are available to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost to the complainant . Thus the issue no 2 and 3 also accordingly answered.
In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay sum of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation as Rs. 2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the order. Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhbits:
A1- Cash Receipt issued by Opposite Party dated: 27-11-2011.
A2- Call details issued by BSNL.
A3- Registered lawyer notice dated: 17-07-2013.
A4- Reply letter sent by the Opposite Party dated: 05-08-2013.
B1- Rank list prepared for the Admission of Plus 1 (Science) in the year 2013-14.
B2- Rank list prepared for the Admission of Plus 1 (Computer Science) in the year
2013-14.
B3- Rank list prepared for the Admission of Plus 1 (Commerce) in the year 2013-14.
B4- Revised Rank list based upon the fresh application prepared for the Admission
of Plus 1 (Science),in the year 2013-14.
B5- Revised Rank list based upon the fresh application prepared for the Admission
of Plus 1 (Computer Science),in the year 2013-14.
B6- Revised Rank list based upon the fresh application prepared for the Admission
of Plus 1 (Commerce),in the year 2013-14.
Witness Examined.
PW1- Lahak. K.A.
PW2- K.Vasu.
DW1- K.G. Achuthan.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
