Orissa

Rayagada

CC/29/2019

Dalai Gowari Sankar Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Mamta Srivastaa Regional Director, National INstitute of Open Schooling - Opp.Party(s)

Smt. Jyashna Rani

31 Aug 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

                                      PO/DIST; RAYAGADA,   STATE:  ODISHA ,Pin No. 765001

C.C. Case  No.   29/ 2019.                              Date.     5.      08   . 2019.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                                   President

Sri Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                                      Member.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                              Member

 

Sri Dalai Gowri Sankar Rao, S/O; Dalai Paidi Raju Jishu Nagar, Kalidas Lane, At/Po: J.K.Pur,  Dist:    Rayagada, State:  Odisha.   Pin No. 765 017.    

10^th. class certificate Roll  No. 920112200463                                        ...Complainant

Vrs.

1.Dr. Mamta Srivastava, Regional Director, National Institue of Open Schooling, Regional office,  Delhi-1.

2.The Register, National Institute of Opening Schooling, At: A-24-25, Institutional Area, Sector-62,  Noida, 201309 Uttar Pradesh

 

3. Sh. V.Santhanam, Regional  Director, National Institute of Open Schooling, Regional Centre, At: 5^th. Floor, “B” Block, VUDA Complex, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam, 530003, State:Andhra Pradesh.                                                        .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Smt. Jyostna Rani Devi and associates.

For the O.Ps  :- Sri Suresh  Kumar Mohapatra, Advocate, Rayagada,  Odisha.

                                               

JUDGEMENT.

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non rectification of  title name of the complainant  in the  10^th. class certificate for the year 2013 i.e.

Damulu Gowri Sankar Rao   instead of  Dalai Gowri Sankar Rao which was issued by the  O.Ps in favour of the complainant  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps    put in their appearance and filed  written version through their learned counsel in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps 2   taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps .   Hence the O.Ps   prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsels for the    O.Ps     and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                    FINDINGS.

Admittedly, the O.Ps are  the  statutary authority for conducting  10^th. Examination through out the  India and accordingly the  O.Ps had issued the Admit card  Roll  No. 920112200463  to  attend the Examination  during  the year 2013. Thereafter  the O.Ps had issued  certificates in favour of the  complainant ( which is in the file  marked as Annexure-I).    This  fact  has not denied  by the O.Ps in  their  written version.

The main grievance  of the complainant is that  in the  10^th. Certificate-cum-Memorandum of marks  the  actual name of the  complainant  is  Dalai Gowri Sankar Rao  but wrongly  the O.Ps  had mentioned  Damulu  Gowri  Sankar  Rao.  For  rectification of the  name the  complainant  had approached the  O.Ps   from  pillar to post  but  the O.Ps had paid deaf ear.  Hence this C.C. case. 

The  O.Ps   in their written  version  contended that  since the matter is connected with Examination, the complaint is not a “Consumer” and as such the complaint is not maintainable. In this connection  the  O.Ps  have  relied citation   i.e. Civil appeal No. 3911 of 2003   Bihar  School  of Examination Board Vrs. Suresh Prasad Sinha  where  in the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  on Dt.4.9.2009 observed  that the Board  is not a ‘Service provider’ and a student who takes an examination is not a ‘Consumer’ and further observed that  complaint under the C.P. Act. 1986   will not be maintainable  against the Board  before the forum.

For better appreciation this forum relied citations which are mentioned here.

It is held and reported in Current Consumer Case 2004 page No.27 where in  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court  observed  the redressal mechanism  established  under the Act is “not supposed to supplant but to supplement the existing judicial system”. It is well settled  principle of law that the statutory authority   should act under the provisions of the relevant statue and if they do  not   act accordingly, the Consumer Forum  have the jurisdiction because  not acting under the provisions of the statute/Act it amounts to deficiency   of service.

Further    It is held and reported in CPR- 2009 (2) Page No. 42  where in  the Himachal Pradesh  State Commission  observed “ we may mention here that it is by now well settled that the C.P. Act, 1986 is a welfare  legislation  meant to give  speedy  in expensive and timely justice to the parties. Similarly it is also well known  that where  two views are possible, one favourable to the consumer needs to be followed.”

Again  It is held and reported in SCC 1994 page No. 243   in  the case of  Lucknow Development Authority Vrs. M.K.Gupta were  where in the Hon’ble  Supreme Court observed  “The importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling   the consumer  to participate directly  in the market economy. It attempts to remove the  helplessness  if a consumer  which he faces  against powerful business, described as,  ‘a  network of rackets’ or a society in which, ‘ producers have secured  power ‘ to ‘rob the rest’ and the might  of public bodies which are degenerating into storehouses of inaction   where papers do not move from one desk  to another as a matter of duty and responsibility, but for extraneous consideration, leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked”.  

Further it is held and reported  in 2002 C..T. J page No.477 the  Hon’ble  National Commission observed that     the C.P.Act, 1986 passed by the Parliament with a hope that the interest of the consumers has to be protected   in order to curb the exploitation from the service providers and the C.P. Act is a special   law over rides  the general law of limitation. Again  Section-3  of the C.P. Act is worded in widest terms and leaves no one in doubt that the provisions of  C.P.Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force.  Thus even if any  other  Act provides for any remedy to  the litigant for redressal by that remedy a litigant can go to  District Consumer Forum, That remedy exists in any other law which creates the right is no bar to the Forum assuming jurisdiction. The word ‘In addition to’ in Section-3 makes it clear that the provisions of Consumer Protection Act  are in addition to the existing laws in force and the C.P. Act provides  additional  remedies  to the Consumer.

This  Forum  perused the citations of the apex court filed by the complainant. It is held and reported  in A.I.R. 1973, page No. 855 in  the case of  Sirsi Municipality  Vrs. Cecelia Korm Francies Tellis the   Hon’ble  Supreme Court  clearly observed statutory provisions to be enforced.  It is settled law that when the action of the State or its instrumentalities is not  as per  the rules or regulations and supported by statute, the  court must  exercise its jurisdiction to declare such an act to be illegal and invalid.  The ratio is that the rules  or  the regulations  are binding  on the authorities. Further another citation  it is held and reported in  A.I.R. 1975  S.C. 1331 Sri Sukhadev Singh & others  Vrs.  Bhagtram  Sukdevsing  Raghavanshi and another  Tellis the   Hon’ble  Supreme Court  clearly observed  that the statutory authority cannot deviate from the conditions service.  Any deviation will be  enforced  by legal sanction of declaration by courts to invalidate actions  in violations of rules and regulations. In case of statutory bodies  there is no personal element what so ever because of the impersonal character of the statutory bodies. When ever a man’s right are effected by decision taken under  statutory powers, the court would  presume the existence of a duty to observe the rules of natural justice and compliance with rules and regulations imposed by statute.

Further   another citation  it is held and reported in  A.I.R. 1998 S.C. page  No. 1153 in Dr.Meera Massey  Vrs. Dr. S.R. Melhotra and others the   Hon’ble  Supreme Court  clearly observed  that  if the laws and principles are eroded by such  institutions, it not only pollutes its functioning  deteriorating  the standard but also  exhibit wrong channel adopted.  If there is an erosion or descending by  those who control the activities all expectations and  hopes are destroyed.  If the institution persons  dedicated and  sincere service with the  highest morality it would not only uplift many  but  being back even a limpint society  to its normalcy.

Again it is held  and reported  in 1994  S.C.C(Supreme Court Cases page No. 44 in Ramachand and  others  Vrs. Union of India and others  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court  observed   the exercise of powers  should not be made against the spirit of the provisions of the statute, otherwise it would tend towards arbitrariness.   Thus when ever any action of the authority  is found  to be in  violation of the provisions of the statute or the action is constitutionally  illegal, it cannot claim any sympathy in law and there is no obligation on the   part  of the court to sanctify such an illegal act. When ever  the statutory provisions is ignored, the court cannot  became a silent  spectator   to such  an illegality and  it  becomes the solemn duty   of  the to deal with the persons violating law with heavy hands.

Further  It is observed in this  case   due to financial crunch the  complainant has no other  option then to approach this forum for redressal of their grievance.

            That for failure to act properly  by the O.Ps. the complainant should not be deprived of his legitmate entitlement, it is to  be ensured   that the benefit to which the consumer   is eligible after due date are entitled enjoy it and it should not became a distant dream.

            Negligence become actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission amounting  to negligence attributable to the person sued.  The essential components of negligence   are  three   types :- Duty, breach and resulting in damage “

            The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Poonam Verma Vrs. Ashwini Patel  reported in  SCC 1996(4) page No. 332  where in  observed  “Neglience as a tort  is the breach of  a duty caused by omission to do something which  a reasonable man would do, or doing something which a prudent man would not do”.

            In the  present  case this forum observed  the O.Ps are statutary authority  empowered to function under a statute is required to discharge  his duty  honestly and bonafide, failed to discharge the same for the sake of general welfare and common good and its actions  are found to be  resulting  in harasssment and agony to the complainant.

            The O.Ps in their written version further contened that  the O.Ps resume its  job resolving complaint immediately once it receives complaint from any of its students provided the students must go according to the procedure. The  complainant  has neither mentioned  regarding  any  communication or correspondence  made between the complainant and  O.Ps as per the procedure of NIOS  Act  nor  filed any postal receipt or  copies of filled form or copy of any bank draft   paid to  the O.Ps  for name correction of the certificate.

            This forum  observed the complainant being an unemployed  youth attended several interviews but due to  defective  certificate, his case was rejected.

For the best  interest of natural justice this  forum observed  now  the complainant  to apply a fresh  for correction of name  in the 10^th. Certificate of the complainant to the O.Ps  in the  prescribed  format  and  with due procedure positively  with  in 7 days  and the O.Ps  are  to take necessary  steps to  correct   the above  certificate early iteralia dispatch the same to the complainant through this forum   for better career of the complainant /student.

            To meet the ends of justice the following ordrer is passed.

                                                                       

ORDER.

The O.Ps  ordered  to receive all the documents  pertaining to  this case from the complainant and    issue  correct certificate  10^th. Certificates  bearing  for the year 2013   Roll  No. 920112200463  in favour   of the complainant  and dispatch the same to the  complainant through this forum with in time frame.  The complainant is directed to  submit all the documents pertaining to the above case  to the O.P. within 7 days .  Parties are left to bear their own cost.

The OPs     ordered to make compliance the aforesaid Order within  60 days from the  date of  receipt  of  document  from the complainant.  .      .

   Serve the copies of above order to the parties free of cost.

 

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this          5^th.   Day of  August  ,   2019.

 

Member.                                                             Member.                                                             President