BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE. PRESENT: THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT Tmt. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E. MEMBER – I THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC. MEMBER – II CC.25 / 2002 TUESDAY THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2010. Nagarajan, S/o. Sri Rajamani, 3/361 Vivekanandar Street, Sriram Nagar, Gandhi Nagar East, Vellore 632 006. … Complainant. - Vs – 1. The Institute of costs and works accountants of India, by its Director – Examinations. No.12, Sudder Street, Kolkata – 700 016. 2. Union of India, rep. by its Head Postmaster, Head Post Office, Vellore 632 001. … Opposite parties. . . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 26.5.2010, in the presence of Thiru. T.L. Narayanan, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. Udhayabanu, Advocate for the opposite party No.1 & Thiru. G.Seralathan, Advocate for the opposite partyl No.2, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following: O R D E R Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District. 1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant having completed his graduation in B.Com., enrolled as a student with the 1st opposite party i.e. Ranipet Chapter to take the examination for the 2nd stage to qualify for the cost and works accountants ICWA paying a sum of Rs.2,460/-. He was allotted student No.47532 oral coaching centre at Ranipet, with semester starting from 6.12.00 and the communication from the Madras Regional office of the 1st opposite party is filed herewith. The complainant regularly attended the class and successfully completed the same in time, to appear for the examinations and he was issued a certificate enrolment No.33/12. The complainant paid the examination fees of Rs.400/- to enable him to sit for the examination to be held in June 2002. The complainant with a view to sit for the examinations in June 2002 has been working very hard and was ready to take the examination and would have certainly got through with the same in flying colours. In fact the complainant had enrolled for the next stage through Postal coaching centre also and paid a sum of Rs.1200/- for material to study and was allotted enrolment No.SNI-25995. The complainant was eagerly waiting to receive the hall ticket and scheme of the examination and centre, as the oral information that he got from the Ranipet Chapter that the examinations were scheduled to start form 18.6.02., and that the centre would be at Government Arts college, Vellore. But to his shock and dismay he did not receive the Hall ticket, and scheme of the examinations till 20.6.02, though he was desperately enquiring about the same, and the examinations had infact begun on 1.6.02. For no fault of his he was prevented from sitting for the examinations and all his preparation were in vain. Shockingly he received the scheme of examinations and hall ticket only on 20.6.02 by which time examinations had already started (on 18.6.02 itself) and it was of No use. The complainant could not sit for the examinations for which he had undergone coaching for which he had paid the necessary fees and all his efforts have proved futile for No fault of his and valuable precious time has been wasted by the gross deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of the 1st opposite party who had sending posted the cover containing the scheme of examinations and hall ticket only on 8.6.02, and the 2nd opposite party who had delivered the same only on 20.6.02, delayedly. Thereby effectively preventing the complainant from taking the examinations which the complainant would have passed with flying colours as he had put in a lot of effort and completed the oral coaching successfully. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant’s effort ended in a fiasco only due to the Gross Deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of the 1st opposite party who has been negligent in posting the hall ticket and scheme of examinations delayedly, and due to the gross deficiency of service and delayedly, and due to the gross deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of the 2nd opposite party who delivered the letter delayedly i.e. 12 days after it was posted, while the normal transit time before delivery is only three days. Therefore, the opposite parties jointly and severally to be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the gross deficiency of service and unfair trade practice causing severe mental agony loss and hardship to the complainant by the delayed delivery of hall ticket and scheme of examinations and directing the opposite party-1 to refund the examination fees of Rs.400/- and Rs.1200/- paid to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards costs of this complaint. 2. The averments in the counter filed by the 1st opposite party is as follows: The complaint of the complainant is not maintainable under the C.P. Act 1986 inter-alia on the following grounds. The opposite party No.1 is an Educational Institution imparting education in the field of Costs and Works Accountancy in India and abroad. The institute is not engaged in rendering service to anybody but is rendering education to the bonafide students as per the Rules and regulations of the opposite party No.1 Institute. The definition of “Service” u/s 2 (o) of the said Act defines “services’ means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provisions of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, entertainment, amusement or the surveying of news or other information but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service. Examination related matters cannot come within the purview of section 2(o) of the said act as the National Commission had in 1966 in the case of Chairman, Board of Examinations, Madras ..VS.. Mohideen Abdul Kadar, categorically held that these services rendered by Universities and Boards do not constitute ‘service’. Meanwhile decisions of several high courts holding that education did not come under the purview of consumer courts are pending before the Supreme Court. The complainant is not a Consumer as defined in the Act. He got information from the Ranipet Chapter of opposite party No.1 that his examination is scheduled to start form 18.6.02, and that his centre would be at Government Arts College, Vellore. It is astonishing to note that the complainant without going to the Examination Centre for enquiry about his Roll number and admit card etc., how he wasted his valuable time and did not appear the examination held on and from 18.6.02. It is apparent from para-2 of the said complaint of the complainant that the cover containing the scheme of examination and the Hall Ticket / Admit Card was posted by the opposite party No.1 on 8.6.02 but the opposite party No.2 delivered the same only on 20.6.02 causing a delay of 12 days for carrying a letter from Kolkata to Vellore. Such delay caused by the opposite party No.2 cannot be attributed to the opposite party No.1. The complainant was registered as a student by Southern India Regional Council of the opposite partly No.1 Institute on 6.12.00. Complainant completed stage-1 (one) through oral coaching Scheme – Session October 2000 to March 2001 conducted by Ranipet – Vellore Chapter of costs Accountants and a certificate bearing No. 233/12 was issued to the complainant. Complainant completed Stage-II through Postal coaching scheme conducted by Southern India Regional Council, Chennai on behalf of the opposite party No.1. The complainant had applied for appearing in the Stage II of June 2002 Term of ICWAI examination vide application No.2m/5862 dt. 8.4.02 by attaching a demand draft bearing No.33715 dt. 8.4.02 drawn on Vijaya Bank for Rs.400/- The complainant had not submitted his examination fee vide challan but vide bank D.D. No.337155 dt. 8.4.02 drawn on Vijaya Bank for Rs.400/- as stated in the Forum. He has not opted for Admit Card for Stage-1 Examination. 3. Inspite of various mistakes committed by the complainant in his examination application the Institute had tried to accommodate his candidature by not summarily rejected his application but by mailing his Admit Card on 8.6.02 which has been delivered by the Postal Authorities after a lapse of 12 days i.e. on 20.6.02 for such postal delay the opposite party No.1 institute has no control. But the complainant failed and neglected to go to the examination centre on 18.6.02 and contract the Centre-in-charge, which was done by all other students, who did not receive the admit card in time due to postal delay. They all sat for the examination under Provisional Roll by showing the valid documents to the Center-in-charge. The opposite party No.1 has never failed in delivering service nor had any intention to prevent the candidates from taking his examination. The complainant very well knew that Governments Arts College, Vellore is his Examination Centre and the examinations were scheduled to be held on and from 18.6.02, he should have ascertained his admit card from the said centre itself as his roll number would have featured at the centre. Besides, he could have also contacted any offices of the opposite party No.1 on telegram or telephone without waiting for the post. It is denied that the opposite party No.1 is engaged in trade or business or there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice as alleged or at all. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 4. The averments in the counter filed by the 2nd opposite party is as follows: This opposite party denies the allegation made in the complaint save and except those that are specifically admitted herein and as regards the rest the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The opposite party is not aware and also not concerned with the averments made in para 1 of the complainant. The said matter is related between the complainant and the 1st opposite party. The complainant has not furnished in his complaint the name of the office of posting and the name of the post office from which the article was dispatched. In the absence of the above particulars this opposite party is not in a position to verify the correctness of the allegation made by the complainant. So the complainant may be directed to furnish the above particulars. The complainant also has not furnished any proof for having received the hall ticket and scheme of the examination. In the view of want of particulars in the complaint, this opposite party reserves its right and also may be permitted to file additional counter as and when further particulars are received. The complainant to strict proof of the fact that the cover containing scheme of examination and Hall ticket was posted on 08.06.2002 and he had received the same only on 20.06.2002. The further allegation that due to the gross deficiency of service and untrade practice of the II opposite party who delivered the letter after a delay of 12 days, while the normal transit time is only 3 days, the complainant was put to lot of mental agony, disappointment copied with waste of hours are all denied by the opposite party-2. There was no delay in effecting the delivery, and there was no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in para-2 of the complaint. Hence the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation much less Rs.1 lakh as claimed by the complainant. The 2nd opposite party denies the allegation that the complainant was made to suffer a loss of Rs.1 lakh to claim the same as compensation. In any event the 2nd opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation as there was no delay, negligence or deficiency of service on its parts. The opposite party is an unnecessary party to this proceedings. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed with costs. 5. Now the points for consideration are: a) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties? b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?. 6. Ex.A1 to ExA10 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite parties have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 7. POINT NO (a): It is admitted facts of the parties that the complainant was a student of opposite party-1 Institute and became eligible for appearing in the Intermediate Examination conducted by the opposite party No.1 Institute. Accordingly the complainant submitted his application for appearing the stage – II of June 2002 term of ICWAI Examination was schedule to begin on 18.6.02. The admit card (hall ticket) received by the complainant only on 20.6.02 from the 2nd opposite party Post Office. 8. The complainant contended that the complainant was eagerly waiting to receive the hall ticket and scheme of the examination and centre, as the oral information that he got information from the Ranipet Chapter that the examinations were scheduled to start from 18.6.02. and that the centre would be at Government Arts College, Vellore. But he received the hall ticket only on 20.6.02 by which time examination have already started and the complainant could not sit for the examinations for which he had undergone coaching for which he had paid the necessary fees and all his efforts have proved futile for no fault of his and valuable precious time has been wasted by the gross deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of the 1st opposite party who had sending posted the cover containing the scheme of examination and hall ticket only on 8.6.02. and the 2nd opposite party who had delivered the same only on 20.6.02 delayedly i.e. 12 days after it was posted. 9. The 1st opposite party contended that all the rules regarding examinations are provided in the prospectus Ex.B6, at page No.75 of the said prospectus the rights and obligations of the student are provided which include the right to get clarifications from the Director (Examinations) in respect of non receipt of admit card (hall ticket) delay in results or any other query pertaining to the examinations. The opposite party No.1 institute had started dispatching Admit card from 31.5. 2002 to 11.6.002 to about 20,000 students. Most of them have received that Admit card and who ever not received the same before 18.6.02 have contacted the Centre Incharge and obtained provisional roll number. It is the practice in every examinations that if any student do not receive the admit card or hall ticket in time, they usually contact their respective Regional Office and Examination Centers. But the complainant deliberately did not move and stood over his right, because he was not prepared to appear for the examination where as he was keeping a vigilant eye for extracting undue profit by way of compensation or damage from the opposite party No.1. 10. The 2nd opposite party contended that the complainant has not furnished the name of the post office for which the article was delivered. In absence of above particulars the 2nd opposite party is not in a position to verify the correctness of the allegation made by the complainant. Therefore, there was no delay in effecting the delivery and there was no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. 11. According to the complainant, after enrolled for the next stage examinations conducted by the opposite party-1’s institute on 18.6.02, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1200/- for materials to study through post coaching centre and he was eagerly waiting to receive the hall ticket. The complainant could not sit the examination on 18.6.02, since he received the hall ticket only on 20.6.02. The complainant stated in his complaint and his proof affidavit that he got the information from the Ranipet Chapter that the examination were schedule to start from 18.6.02, and that the centre would be at Government Arts College, Vellore. From the perusal of Ex.B4, condition for appearing in examination and Ex.B5 instruction to Centre incharge for June 2002 examination. It is stated as follows: “Students who fulfill the above conditions but have not received the Admit Card may approach the Centre in charge to allow them to appear in the examination with provisional roll number in the centre opted by them in the Examination Form subject to production of the following. “ 1. Photo identity card 2. Photo copy of proof of payment of fees for the examination before 25th April 2002. 3. Proof of having valid Coaching Clearance Certificate. 4. Proof of having applied for Revalidation of CC or application for De Novo Registration “Students must appear only in the Centre indicated in the Admit Card. In case of a student who has not got his / her admit card but in appearing in the examination based on production of documents mentioned above, he / she must present himself/herself only at the Examination Centre opted for the him/her in the Examination Application Form. In case any student appears at a Centre different from the one allotted to or opted by him/her, the candidature of the student is liable to be cancelled for the examination.” In case a candidate presents himself/herself at center claiming non receipt of Admit card, he / she may be allowed to appear at the Examination provided he / she can establish his / her identity with the help of the Student Identity Card and if the candidate’s name appears in the Attendance Roll. (Se also item 3 on the next page) Normally a candidate should not be allowed to appear in a centre other than a centre allotted to him/her. However, in some special cases such change of center may be allowed if the candidate produces sufficient evidences for not availing himself/herself of the original center allotted to him/her and the concerned officer-in-chagre is satisfied with the evidences produced for such a change. “\ But the complainant did not contact Southern Indian Regional council or Ranipet Chapter regarding the non receipt of admit card till 18.6.02. As per the conditions mentioned in Ex.B4 & Ex.B5 the complainant did not go to examinations centre of Government Muthurangam Arts College, Vellore on 18.6.02 for enquiries about non receipt of hall ticket or admit card. The complainant also not sending fax or telegram to the Director of examination, ICWAI course Calcutta regarding the non receipt of Admit card. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant deliberately did not move and stood over is right mentioned the Ex.B4 & Ex.B5 by the 1st opposite party’s institute. 12. According to the complainant, the admit card ( hall ticket) dispatched by the 1st opposite party on 8.6.02, but the 2nd opposite party delivered the letter to the complainant delayedly i.e. 12 days. According to the 2nd opposite party the complainant has not furnished the name of post office from which the article was dispatched to the opposite party’s post office. In the absence of the above particulars the 2nd opposite party is not in a position to verify the 12 days delay. The 1st opposite party has mentioned in his proof affidavit that the 1st opposite party has mailed the admit card of the complainant on 8.6.02 from RLO Building of GPO, Calcutta, 700 001. Based on the above fact, the complainant has stated that the cover containing the hall ticket delivered by the 2nd opposite party only on 20.6.02 delayedly i.e. 12 days. But there is no proof that the admit card of the complainant was mailed on 8.6.02. from the above said GPO, Calcutta. Therefore it is clear that the 2nd opposite party has not responsible to deliver the cover containing Admit Card (Hall ticket) on 20.6.02. 13. Hence, taking all the above facts into consideration from the contention in the complaint and the counters, as well as proof affidavit of the both the parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 to A10 & Ex.B1 to Ex.B7, we have come to the conclusion that the complainants herein have not clearly proved the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties herein. Hence we answer this point (a) as against the complainants herein. 14. POINT NO : (b) In view of our findings on point (a), since, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties herein. We have also come to the conclusion that the complainant is not at all entitled to any relief asked for by him, in this complaint. Hence we answer this point (b) also as against the complainant herein. 15. In the result this complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 22nd day of June 2010. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1- 1.11.00 – X-copy of Receipt, for Rs.2460/- Ex.A2- 6.12.00 - X-copy of enrollment issued by Regional office of opp party-1 Ex.A3- -- - X-copy of oral coaching completion certificate. Ex.A4- - - X-copy of identity card. Ex.A5- 8.4.02 - X-copy of Challan for payment of Exam Fees. Ex.A6-25.11.00 - Challan for payment of Rs.1200/- Ex.A7- 14.3.02 - X-copy of opposite party-1’s communication to complainant. Ex.A8- -- - X-copy of Postal cover bearing dispatch seal 8.6.02 delivery seal 20.6.02 Ex.A9- 28.5.02 - x-copy of scheme of examination sent by opp party-1. Ex.A10- -- - X-copy of Hall ticket received on 20.6.02. Opposite parties’ Exhibits: Ex.B1- -- - Letter of Authority. Ex.B2- -- -- X-copy of Exam application. Ex.B3- -- - x-copy of ICWAI Exam instruction. Ex.B4- -- - X-copy of condition appearing in examination. Ex.B5 -- - x-copy of instruction to centre-in-charge for June 2002 Exam. Ex.B6- -- - Prospectus. Ex.B7- -- - Examination Timetable. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. | 
