Karnataka

Tumkur

CC/77/2016

J.B.Chirag - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Officer,Sarvodaya Pre University College - Opp.Party(s)

in person

14 Aug 2020

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 07-06-2016

                                                      Disposed on: 14-08-2020

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

 

CC.No.77/2016

 

DATED THIS THE 14^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2020

 

PRESENT

 

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER

 

Complainant: -

J.B.Chirag S/o Basavaraj

No.7176, 2^nd floor,

Opp. HDFC Bank,

BH Main Road, Subhash Nagar

Nelamangala-562123

Bengaluru Rural District

 

(In Person)

 

V/s

Opposite party:-       

 

Administrative Officer,

Sarvodaya PU College,

Horapete, Tumakuru

 

(By Sri.S.K.Mallikarjuna, Advocate)

      

ORDER

 

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, PRESIDENT

 

This complaint has filed by J.B.Chirag S/o Basavaraj resident of Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District to direct the Opposite party-Administrative Officer, Sarvodaya PU College, Tumakuru (hereinafter called as OP) to pay Rs.1,00,000=00 with interest from the date of admission to the college i.e. from 10-6-2014 till payment for deficiency in service.

 

2. It is the case of complainant that by paying fee of Rs.2,520=00 he has got admission in the OP college for 2^nd PUC on 10-6-2014. The OP at the time of admission assured that it will conduct three tests and three examinations prior to final examination. The OP has committed deficiency in service by conducting only two tests and single examination as a result the complainant could not prepare well for his final examination consequently, he passed in second class in 2^nd PUC examination. Hence, this complaint.

 

 

          3. The OP after the service of notice appeared through its learned counsel and resisted the complaint by denying the allegations made in the complaint. It is the case of OP that it has not assured that it would conduct three tests and three examinations prior to annual examination. The complainant was not regular to classes and during the tests and preliminary examination he was remained absent as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. The complainant does not fall under the definition of “Consumer”. On the above grounds, the OP asked to dismiss the complaint.

         

4. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and produced Exs-C1 to C14 documents. That one G.Seetharam, Administrative Officer of OP has filed affidavit evidence and produced Exs.R1 to R18 documents.

 

          5. We have heard the oral arguments in addition to written brief submitted by the complainant whereas the OP and their counsel remained absent and the points that would arise for determination are as under:

1)      Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service on the part of OP?

2)      Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?  

6. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1: In the negative   

Point No.2: In the negative for the below

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point No.1 to 2: The complainant’s GPA holder has advanced their arguments that the OP has failed to conduct the three tests and three examinations though they have received fee of Rs.2,520=00 for 2^nd PUC. The OP is negligent in discharge of service and further it has not completed the syllabus of 2^nd year PUC as such the complainant has secured less marks in 2^nd PUC final examination conducted by the PU Board. The OP has not disputed that the son of GPA holder has got admission to 2^nd PUC on 10-6-2014 by paying necessary tuition and other fees. It is the specific case of OP that it has conducted the two tests and two examinations in addition to three practical examinations as such there is no deficiency in service on its part. On the contrary the complainant was remained absent to the tests and preparatory examination conducted by the OP prior to final examination held in the month of March, 2015. It is further contention of OP that the complainant does not fall under the definition of “Consumer”.   

 

          8. The complainant has produced Ex.C1-Fee receipt issued by the OP-Sarvodaya Pre-University College, Tumkur dated 10-6-2014 and it has collected Rs.2,520=00 under various heads including tuition fee for 2^nd PUC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Buddist Mission Dental College –vs- Buphesh Khurana I (2009) CPJ 25 (SC) held that;

“Imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within ambit of service as defined in the CP Act, 1986. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by educational institutions. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. The complainant had hired services of respondents for consideration so they are consumers as defined under the CP Act, 1986”.

 

In the case on hand the complainant has hired the service of OP to impart the education for his 2^nd PUC. Therefore, in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court, the complainant falls under the definition of “Consumer”.

 

         

9. The complainant has relied on Ex.C2-Card issued by SIEE Director. It is stated in Ex-C2 as special training for C.E.T. and 2^nd PUC annual examination of March, 2015. It is in the name of complainant and they are five extra facilities; (1) Regular classes for II PUC will begin on 5^th May, 2014, (2) Training for C.E.T.-I.I.T.-A.I.E.E.E. classes will begin from 15^th May, 2014 and will continue till 1^st April, 2015, (3) Printed Notes and Tex Books will be provided for all students, (4) Three Examinations and Three Tests will be conducted during the academic year and (5) The examination will be conducted in C.E.T.-I.I.T-A.I.E.E.E. course. It is printed below above facilities as Director but it is not signed by anyone. It is the case of OP that they have not issued Ex.C-2.

 

10. The OP has delivered 14 interrogatories on 23-11-2016 to complainant and Sl.No.7 to 10 are pertaining to Ex-C2. The OP has asked in Sl.No.8 to 10 of interrogatories-On which date Ex.C2 was issued?, What is the Abbreviation of “SIEE”? and Whether there is any “Director” as mentioned at Ex.C-2, if so who?. The complainant has answered interrogatories 7 to 10 as Ex-C2 was issued along with fee receipt of Ex-C1 dated 10-6-2014. In fact Ex-C2 does not bear date and signature of Director. Further answer of complainant is that probably abbreviation of SIEE is Sarvodaya Independent Education Establishment. Next answer is that they are Directors for this establishment, college Principal was one of the Directors. The complainant has not produced any documents to show that the OP-Sarvodaya PU College, Tumakuru is run by Sarvodaya Independent Education Establishment Society. Further the complainant has not produced or called for any document from the OP to know the exact abbreviation of SIEE and the name of Directors. Answer given by the complainant in respect of Ex-C2 cannot be relied upon since he does not know what is abbreviation of SIEE on which the complaint is filed. As already observed that Ex-C2 does not bear the signature of Director.

 

          11. The complainant in interrogatories admitted that he had completed his 1^st year PUC at Mahesh PU College, Tumakuru during the academic year 2012-2013. The complainant had joined the 2^nd PUC in OP college during the year 2013-2014.  Again he got admission for 2^nd PUC in OP college during the year 2014-15 vide Ex-C1 receipt dated 10-6-2014. According to Ex-C2 his own document regular classes were started on 5-5-2014 but the complainant has got admission on 10-6-2014 after more than one month and five days. The complainant has produced Ex.C-13 issued by the Government of Karnataka, PU Board guidelines in respect of educational and non-educational activities for the academic year 2014-2015. According to Ex-C13 the 2^nd PUC classes shall commence from 2-6-2014, the first test be conducted 5-8-2014 to 7-8-2014 and the second test on 5-12-2015 to 8-12-2014. Preparatory examination shall be completed on 28-1-2015. The complainant had joined the OP College after commencing the classes as per the Government guidelines. According to the Government guidelines the classes shall be commenced on 2-6-2014 but the complainant had joined on 10-6-2014.

 

12. The OP has produced Ex-R3 with regard to shortage of attendance of complainant for the year 2013-2014 as such he was not permitted to appear for the 2^nd PUC annual examination. Ex-R5 is statement of marks of 1^st test conducted by OP for 2^nd PUC students. The 1^st test was conducted in August, 2014 and the complainant has secured 10 marks out of 25 for Physic, 2 marks out of 25 for Chemistry, 2 marks out of 25 for Mathematics and 22 marks out of 25 for Computer Science. The OP has conducted the 2^nd test in the month of December, 2014. Ex-R6 is marks card of complainant. According to Ex-R6 the complainant was remained absent for Physics subject and he secured 5 marks out of 25 in Chemistry, 5 marks out of 25 in Mathematics and 11 marks out of 25 in Computer Science. The OP has conducted midterm examination in the month of October, 2014 and Ex-R7 is statement of marks of complainant. The complainant has secured 17 marks out of 70 for Physics, 7 marks out of 70 for Chemistry, 26 marks out of 100 for Mathematics and 34 marks out of 70 for Computer Science. The OP has conducted preparatory examination in the month of February, 2015 and Ex-R8 is statement of marks of complainant. The complainant has appeared for English paper only and he secured 36 marks out of 100 and he was remained absent for other five papers. The complainant disputed Ex-R8 statement of marks but the OP has produced Ex.R9 invigilators diary of preparatory examination held in the month of February, 2015. The complainant registration number is 2C088 and his Sl.No.54. Ex-R9 contained details of all papers, date on which the preparatory examination was conducted and signature of each students for every subject. The complainant has signed on 20-2-2015, the day on which English paper examination was held and for rest of the subject namely Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry and Computer Science shown as absent. Ex-R9 is not only the complainant but it pertains to 54 students who were studying in the OP PU College during the year 2014-2015.

 

 

13. On perusal of the statement of marks of complainant he has secured less number of marks in the 1^st and 2^nd tests and also midterm examination. The complainant was remained absent for five papers in preparatory examination held in the month of February, 2015. There is short fall of conducting one test and one examination as per Ex-C2 even if it is issued by the OP. But on perusal of securing the marks by complainant during the tests and midterm examination it can be held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. The 2^nd test though was conducted in the month of December, 2014 two months prior to annual examination the complainant was remained absent for Physics paper and he had secured only five marks out of 25 for Chemistry and five marks for Mathematics out of 25. Therefore, according to PU Board guidelines the OP shall only conduct the two tests and preparatory examination but the OP has conducted two tests, midterm examination and another preparatory examination. The complainant has not acquired knowledge of the subjects even though he had joined the 2^nd PUC twice even then he has made allegations against the OP for not conducting signal test and another examination as per alleged Ex-C2 card.

 

 

          14. The complainant in the complaint nowhere whispered with regard to non-completion of syllabus by OP. On the contrary in the written argument for the first time the complainant has made allegations against the OP that it has not completed the syllabus of 2^nd PUC. The complainant has not made averments either in the complaint or affidavit evidence as such allegations cannot be accepted as there is no opportunity to OP counter the said allegation of not completing the syllabus. On perusal of statement of marks of complainant it cannot be held that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. On the contrary the complainant has not acquired knowledge of subjects during the two academic years for 2^nd PUC as such he secured second class in annual examination. In view of the above discussion, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation as sought in the complaint. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

The complaint filed by J.B.Chirag S/o Basavaraj is dismissed without costs.

 

Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite party at free of cost.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 14^th day of August, 2020).

 

 

LADY MEMBER            MEMBER                       PRESIDENT