A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

AT HYDERABAD.

F.A.  1721/2007  against C.C. 191/2006, Dist. Forum,

Medak at Snaga Reddy

Between:

Byagari Sakkubai

D/o. B. Narasimulu

Age: 18 years,

Rep. by  her father & Guardian

B. Narasimulu

S/o. Penataiah, 49 years

R/o. Kalivemula village

Sanga Reddy, Medak Dist.                          ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                Complainant.

                                                                   And

1)  Gazetted Headmaster

Z.P.  Girls High  School

Sanga Reddy, Medak Dist.

2)  The Dist. Educational Officer

Sanga Reddy

Medak District

3)  The Secretary

A.P. State Board of  Secondary Education

Chapal Bazar, Gunfoundry

Hyderabad.                                                           ***                         Respondents/

                                                                                                Ops.

Counsel for the Appellant:                          M/s.  D. Krishna Murthy

Counsel for the Resp:                                  Asst. Govt. Pleader.

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

                 SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

&

                 SRI K. SATYANAND, MEMBER

FRIDAY, THIS THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

                                                          *****

1)                 Unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

2)                 The case of the complainant in brief is that  she was admitted  in  R1,    Zilla Parishad  Girls High School, Sanga Reddy on  28.6.2003 and continued her studies  up to  SSC.   During the year  2004-2005  she paid   annual examination fee for appearing   SSC public examination.     R3  State of Board of   Secondary Education (herein after called the ‘Board’)   issued  hall ticket.    She appeared for the examination  and passed.  However, her original  SSC marks memo  was not furnished despite repeated reminders.    As the respondents did not issue the said certificate  she could not  pursue  her higher education and in the process lost one academic year  and she also lost future prospects.    She was an  S.C. student and  could have employed easily or pursued higher education.    Alleging that it amounts to deficiency in service  claimed Rs. 1 lakh towards mental agony, Rs. 2 lakhs towards loss of one academic year together with interest and costs. 

3)                R1 resisted the case.  However, he admitted the issuance of hall ticket to the complainant for appearing SSC examination  in March, 2004 and the fact that she passed in three subjects, initially  and later in  May, 2004, two subjects, and finally  in  March, 2005 she passed  in the remaining subjects.    After receipt of  pass certificates  it had distributed to all the successful candidates.  For the first time in  November, 2005  she  applied for  transfer certificate, Bonafide Certificate and Memorandum of Marks.. Except  SSC memo other certificates were issued to her.  As the Examination In-charge is on leave SSC  certificate could not be  given.    When her brother insisted for  issuance of SSC certificate  to him, they had insisted to get his sister  viz., the complainant to the school to take certificate  as per rules.   Subsequently, when she applied for the SSC certificate  they found that it was misplaced.  Immediately it had issued a memo  No. 252/2006 Dt. 13.3.2006 to the Examination In-charge about non-issuance of  the certificate.  However, he failed  to  comply.   Yet  another  reminder  was  given  on    27. 03. 2006.               

There was correspondence between him and the Examination In-charges.    On that  an enquiry was ordered.  In the enquiry  Sri M. A. Basheer has admitted his mistake stating that all the original pass memos  were misplaced during his tenure.  On that he was kept under suspension. On  a  report the police has been enquiring into the matter.    In fact  it has also addressed a letter to the Principal, Government Junior College for Girls to admit her so that she could save the academic year by enclosing the marks sheet duly attested.    It  was also mentioned that as soon as they received   the certificate from the Board  it would forward.    Several students who had obtained  duplicate marks memos  were admitted and  pursuing their  education.    In fact the complainant did not  turn up till today to take the  duplicate certificate.    She was at liberty to approach them and receive the  certificate.    Therefore there was no deficiency of service on its part and prayed for dismissal of  the complaint. 

4)                 R2  equally resisted the case.    It alleged that the complainant made an application before the Legal Services Authority averring  very same allegations.    Certificates were despatched from  its office  after publication of results  in April, 2005.    In fact original certificate has been lost  with  R1.    There was no deficiency in service on its part.   On the complaint the  Deputy Educational Officer, Medak at Sanga Reddy  conducted a detailed enquiry  regarding non-issuance of certificate to the complainant.  Sri  M. A. Basheer  had admitted that the he misplaced the certificates of  39 candidates.    Accordingly duplicate certificates were sent to the schools.    Therefore there was no negligence or deficiency in service  on  its part, and  prayed for dismissal of the complaint  with costs.

5)                 R3  filed a memo adopting the counter of  R2. 

6)                 Both sides filed their affidavit evidence in support of their case and got Exs. A1 to A8 marked on the side of complainant and Exs. B1 to B14 on the side of opposite parties.    

7)                 The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that  except the complainant  rest of the candidates who did not receive the certificates in view of the fact that they were misplaced were  admitted for Intermediate  course  on the letters addressed by  R1.    The complainant did not go  to the school to receive  the  duplicate  SSC certificate.    Even now the complainant could still approach  the school authorities  and receive the duplicate certificate.    This cannot be said to be deficiency in service  and therefore dismissed the complaint. 

8)                 Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the very non-issuance of certificate  itself amounts  to deficiency in service.  She could not pursue her higher education.   Moreover, she lost one academic  year.    When admittedly her certificate was misplaced  due to negligence of employee of R1,  respondents are liable for its acts and therefore prayed that the complaint be allowed.

9)                 The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by  mis-appreciation of fact and law?

10)               It is an undisputed fact that the complainant passed   SSC examination.   It  is also not in dispute that  SSC pass certificate  was not given to her.    When  complained it was found that one  Mr.  M. A. Basheer, Examination In-charge  of  R3 Board,   had misplaced the certificates.    He was kept under suspension and the police enquiry was  in progress against him. 

11)               When the complainant approached R1 expressing her willingness to join in a Government  Junior College for Girls, admittedly R1  addressed a letter to the Principal requesting him to admit her in the college informing that duplicate marks memo  would be submitted on receipt of the same from R3  Board.   Despite the fact that  R1 informed that duplicate marks memo  certificate was received,  the complainant did not collect from the college.    The record discloses that  Mr.  M. A. Basheer, Examinations In-charge  had misplaced 39 certificates.   On that R1  addressed  Ex. B11  letter  to the Principal of the college  requesting him to join the students whose certificates  were misplaced.  R1  alleged that  B. Saraswathi a colleague of the complainant was in fact pursued her education in the college on a letter written by her.   This was not disputed.     The complainant filed Ex. A4 a letter issued by R1 to the Principal, Government Junior College (Girls), Sanga Reddy  to admit her.  However, according to the complainant  she was not admitted.    The Dist. Forum found that the complainant could not show  that she had submitted the same to the  Principal,  Govt. Junior College (Girls), Sanga Reddy and that the  Principal had refused to receive the same.    When R1  had filed  Ex. B13  copy of the marks memo and Ex. B14 age certificate of the complainant  there was no reason why  the complainant did  not approach R1  to receive the duplicate memo etc. 

12)               The Dist. Forum opined that R1 & R2 had taken immediate action against the  Examination In-charge and an  enquiry was initiated and he was kept under suspension.  However, in order to see that the  career  and  future prospects of these candidates  should not be jeopardized  addressed  letters to the Principals  to  admit these candidates on the ground that the certificates were misplaced.  In fact some of the students had purused their education.    Though the complainant alleged that she was unable to prosecute  her further studies in view of the fact  that marks memo/certificate  was not issued to her,  the record shows otherwise.    R1 Headmistress of the school  had issued  letters to the principal to admit her  for higher education.    Later duplicate memos/certificates were sent to the schools  as per the rules.    The complainant had to go and take return of the certificates.    It is not know why the complainant is not going to the school to  take return of  those certificates. 

13)               The facts disclose that the so called deficiency in service of non-furnishing of  SSC certificate/marks memo was due to misplacement of certificates by Mr. M. A. Basheer, Examinations Incharge of the Board.  There was no deficiency in service on the part of R1, ex-facie as she had promptly acted,   the moment she came to know that these certificates were misplaced.

14)               The question is whether a complaint could lie against  R3 Board.  The Supreme Court in  Bihar School Examination Board  Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha  held that :    

“The object of the Act is to cover in its net, services offered or rendered for a consideration. Any service rendered for a consideration is presumed to be a commercial activity in its broadest sense (including professional activity or quasi-commercial activity). But the Act does not intended to cover discharge of a statutory function of examining whether a candidate is fit to be declared as having successfully completed a course by passing the examination. The fact that in the course of conduct of the examination, or evaluation of answer-scripts, or furnishing of mark-sheets or certificates, there may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Board into a service-provider for a consideration, nor convert the examinee into a consumer who can make a complaint under the Act. We are clearly of the view that the Board is not a ‘service provider’ and a student who takes an examination is not a ‘consumer’ and consequently, complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board.”

15)               Therefore non-furnishing of  marks memo/certificate cannot be said to be a deficiency in service.  In view of the authoritative  pronouncement of the Supreme Court, we are also of the opinion  that  the Board is not rendering any service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.    The complainant is not entitled to any relief.    We do not see any mis-appreciation of  fact and law by the Dist. Forum  in this regard. 

16)               While parting with the case, we  advise the complainant to go to R1 school  and receive the duplicate certificate as she had agreed to issue to her after taking acknowledgement.    The complainant has been unnecessarily  pursing the litigation despite R1 Headmistress  agreed to issue  duplicate certificate.

17)               In the result the appeal is dismissed. No costs. 

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER           

3)      ________________________________

 MEMBER           

   Dt.  26. 02. 2010.  

*pnr