<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> By ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.<br /> <br /> The complainant has filed this complaint for getting compensation and cost from the opp.parties for their negligent act.<br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant is a B.Com Co-operation degree graduate. For her self employment purpose she applied for the Scriber's License Written Examination 2005 conducted by State Registration Department. Remitted Rs.200/- as the examination fee on 11.8.2005. On the basis of the said application the respondents issued admission ticket viz No. 6220 and the examination was on 10.9.2005 at 10.20 A.M to 11.30 A.M. The examination center was mentioned in the admission ticket was at Pathanamthitta, Govt. B.Ed. Center. As per the direction in the admission ticket the complainant appeared before the 3rd opp.party and affix her photograph on the admission ticket signed in his presence. The 3rd opp.party verified the admission ticket and attested on it. On 10.9.2005 the complainant reached the said B.Ed center, Pathanamthitta ie. 65 km. Away from the complainant's residence for attending the said examination in correct time. But unfortunately the authorities of the B.Ed. Center informed that they have no information from any authorities to conduct the said examination in this center. Due to the negligent act of the opp.parties by entering wrong examination center the complainant could not be able to participate the said examination. Due to the respondents above said act the complainant sustained heavy loss and agony and hence the opp.parties are liable to compensate the complainant . Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> The opp.parties filed version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law on or facts. The complainant and her husband were provided with University B.Ed Center as the examination center. After receiving the hall ticket the complainant and her husband came to the office of this opp.party for getting the photo identified in the hall ticket by this opp.party. This opp.party after identifying both the complainant and her husbands as usual informed orally that they have been provided with the Registration numbers 6220 and 6221 respectively and the examination center allotted is University B.Ed center, Kollam. The complainant and her husband even replied that they can attend the examination in the same hall adjacently as the Registration Numbers alloted to them are one after another. Moreover the examination center alloted to the applicant in the examination was publicly exhibited in the office of this opp.party against each Reg.No.. So if any variance was there in the hall ticket issued to the complainant she could have reported the matter to this opp.party. If any wrong mentioning of the center in the hall ticket is happened the complainant can very well inform the matter to this opp.party at the time of accepting the hall ticket and at the time of attesting the photographs by this opp.party as this opp.party orally and by notice intimated the center to the complainant. The complainant ought to have realize the fact that mentioning of an examination center outside the local limits was an error as her husband with the next number had been alloted with an examination center as an ordinary prudent man. There is no negligence or latches from the side of these opp.parties in conducting the examination and issuing the hall tickets to the complainant as alleged in the petition. The date, time and the center of the proposed examination was published in the notice board of the office and the complainant is supposed to verify the same with the hall tickets issued to her and if any difference is there that ought to have been reported to this office by the complaint in time. There is no negligence or latches from the side of this opp.party in carrying out their obligations and hence this opp.party is not bound to pay any amount by way of cost or compensation to the complainant..<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The point that would arise for consideration are:<br /> 1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties<br /> 2.Reliefs and costs.<br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Exts.P1 to P4 are marked.<br /> <br /> For the opp.parties DW.1 is examined. Exts. D1 is marked.<br /> <br /> Points 1 and 2:<br /> <br /> The complainant's case is that the examination center mentioned in the admission ticket was at Pathanamthitta, Govt. B.Ed center instead of Kollam B.Ed center and it was happened only due to the negligent act and deficiency of service of the opp.parties. Opp.parties main contention is that the date, time and center of the proposed examination was published in the notice board of the office and the complainant is supposed to verify the same with the hall tickets issued to her. Here the question is whether the non attendence of the complainant in the said examination was due to the negligent act of the opp.parties or not. There is no dispute that the center noted in Ext.P2 is Government B.Ed center, Pathanamthitta and it was issued by the 2nd opp.parties contention is that if there is any difference in the center noted in the notice board of the office and the hall tickets, the complainant ought to have reported to the opp.parties office in time. From the whole evidence, it is revealed that the opp.parties have not produced any material worth believable to show that they had published the date, time and center of the proposed examination in the notice board of the office. There is only a vague statement that had done so. In the absence of any material the only statement put forward by the opp.parties cannot be accepted. The complainant as a lay man normally believed the admission ticket issued by the opp.parties. The non-attendance of the complainant in the said examination was due to the opp.parties negligent act.<br /> <br /> In view of the above discussion we came to a conclusion that the opp.parties have failed to mention the actual examination center of the complainant in Ext.P2 Admission ticket. That act of the opp.parties amount to grave deficiency in service on their part. Hence the complainant deserves relief. <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is allowed, the opp.parties are directed to give Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation and travel expenses incurred to the complainant and the examination fee remitted by the complainant. The opp.parties are also directed to give Rs.1000/- as cost to the proceedings. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order.<br /> Dated this the 7th day of June, 2008.<br /> K. VIJAYAKUMARAN:Sd/-<br /> ADV. RAVI SUSHA :Sd/-<br /> R. VIJAYAKUMAR :Sd/-<br /> Forwarded/by Order,<br /> <br /> <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.<br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> PW.1. - Shibu<br /> List of documents for the complainant <br /> P1. - Authorization letter.<br /> P2- Receipt<br /> P3. - Admission tickets<br /> P4. - Admission ticket of Shibu.<br /> List of witnesses for the opp.party<br /> DW.2 – Jose Antony<br /> List of documents for the opp.party<br /> D1. - Extract of Hall ticket Register <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />