BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 31st day of July, 2007
C.C. No.27/2007
D. Shoba Rani, D/o. Shikamani,
R/o H.No. 19/100, Sangaiah peta, Nandikotkur, Kurnool District.
... COMPLINANT
-Vs-
, 1)Kakatiya University, S.D.L.C.E, Regional Study Centre Represented by its Proprietor Sharma,
Near Birla Gate, Krishna Nagar, Kurnool.
2) The Controller of Examiner, Kakatiya University,
Warangal-506 009. …OPPOSITE PARTIES …
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.A.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool, for complainant , and Sri.S.Chand Basha, Advocate, Kurnool , for opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 called absent and said exparte and after pursuing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:
C.C.No. 27/07
ORDER
( As Per Smt. C. Preethi, Member)
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed Under Section 12 of C.P.Act , seeking a direction on opposite parties to declare result of the complainant for the academic year 2005 and 2006 by rectifying the mistake of her absence, to allow the complainant to appear for examinations, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the loss of one academic year , Rs. 50,000/- as mental agony , Rs.10,000/- cost of the case and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the opposite party No.1 is study centre on behalf of opposite party No2 and provided coaching classes for M.A.(Hindi) post graduation in the year 2004 by collecting Rs.8,000/- per year as tution fee and Rs.350/- towards examination fee. The complainant joined the said course and completed first year and appeared for second year examinations in all subjects. A mark list was delivered to the complainant by opposite party No.1 noting the complainant did not appear for the examination of Kavya Sashtra mentioning ‘‘AB’’ at the place of marks secured indicating the absence of complainant for the said paper. Immediately the complainant questioned the opposite party No.1 to correct the mark list. The opposite party No.1 verified the records and found that the complainant appeared for examination from a carbon copy of statement of attendance dated 14.7.2005 and form ‘D’ opposite party No.1 requested the complainant to approach opposite party No.2, on approaching the opposite party No.2 the complainant was informed that she will receive the rectified mark list through opposite party No.1. Thereafter ,there was no response from opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2. Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 2.1.2007 , but no action was initiated to rectify the mistake. Therefore, the complainant resorted to the forum for reliefs.
3. In support of her case the complainant relied and following documents viz., (1) Hall Ticket No. 60037690 of D. Shobha Rani, / Complainant , (2) Marks Memo of Complainant, dated 19.10.2005 (3) D/Form dated 14.5.2005, (4) Office Copy of legal notice dated 2.1.2007, (5) Letter addressed to the Complainant of Co-coordinator to bring D.Form and absent marks memo, (6) Postal acknowledgement by Opposite Party No.1 as to the receipt of Ex.A4, (7) postal acknowledgement of Opposite Party No.2 as to the receipt of Ex.A4 , (8) Duplicate D.Form issued by Kakatiya University, Warangal and (9) Statement of attendance issued by Kakatiya University , Warangal, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A9 for its appreciation in this case. The Complainant caused interrogatories to Opposite Party No.1 and suitablely replied to the interrogatories of opposite party No.1. The Complainant also relied on the deposition of G. Sanjeeva Rao.(Pw1)
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the Complainant , the Opposite Party No.2 remained absent throught out the case proceedings and opposite party No.1 appeaed through their standing counsel and filed written version.
5. The written version of opposite party admits the complainant joined their study centre for M.A (Hindi) for the year 2004 and passed first year and appeared for second year exams. The exams are conducted by Opposite Party No.2 and marks card and results are also published by Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.1 has nothing todo with mistakes in marks memo and results. It is only a study centre to give study material to the students, conduct classes, collect fee and forward the same to Opposite Party No.2, after results the mark cards of candidates will be handed over to the candidates. It further submits that it has no information as to the Complainant wrote the exams and no record is available with it. As Opposite Party No.1 has no control over conducting the exams, monitoring the exams etc., it is not liable for the laches of Opposite Party No.2. The mistakes in the marks list are done by opposite party No.2 and the Complainant is requested to approach Opposite Party No.2 for verification or clarification by rendering needful help. Therefore , the Opposite Party No.1 is not liable for mistakes in the marks list of the Complainant and there is no deficiency of service on part of Opposite Party No.1 and seeks for the dismissal of Complainant with costs.
6. In substantiation of their case the Opposite Party No.1 relied on the following documents viz., (1) Original prospects of Kakatiya University for P.G./Diploma Courses, besides to the sworn affidavit of Opposite Party No.1 and the above document is marked as Ex.B1 for its appreciation in this case. The Opposite Party No.1 caused interrogatories to the Complainant and replied to the interrogatories of the complainant.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the Complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of Opposite Parties:?
8. The case of the complainant is that she joined Opposite Party No.2 University for M.A (Hindi) post graduation in the year 2004 through opposite party No.1and paid Rs.8,000/- as tution fee and Rs.350/- as examination fee and completed first year post graduation and Opposite Party No.2 issued Ex.A1 Hall Ticket bearing No. 60037690 to the Complainant for writing examinations. There after, the complainant appeared for second year examination in the month of July, 2005 and a memorandum of marks was issued by opposite party No.2, showing the complainant failed in “Kavya sastra” by mentioning “AB” in the column marks secured, indicating the Complainant was absent for said examination i.e., Kavya sastra. while such so with the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.1in their written version avernments submits that it has no control over opposite party No.2 and the mistake crept in the memorandum of marks is done by opposite party No.2 and there is no deficiency of service on their part. The Complainant in support of her case relied on the evidence of P.W 1 , Principal of Coles Memorial College, Kurnool, he says, in the year 2005, Kakatiya University’s Distance Education examination centre was given for graduate and P.G. Courses in all subjects to their college. He further submits that the D-Form dated 14.7.2005 was issued by Opposite Party No.2 is a computerized copy, showing the Hall ticket numbers of candidates for attending examination for ‘kavya Sastra’ in their centre. The absentees were rounded off and the presentees were given tick marks against their hall ticket numbers. The complainant’s hall ticket number was given a tick mark, it shows that the Complainant has written the examination for ‘‘kavya sastra’’ on 14.7.2005. The Ex.A8 is the duplicate manual D-Form containing Hall tickets Numbers of candidates present and absentees Hall Ticket Numbers written separately. The original of said Ex.A8 was sent to the University (opposite party No.2) along with the answer scripts, who appeared for “ Kavya Sastra” exam in a sealed cover through speed post. The EX.A9 is the statement of attendance to whom additional answer sheets were given. The complainant’s Hall ticket bearing no 60063790 were given a main answer sheet and one additional answer sheet.
9. Hence, it is clear from the deposition of P.W.1 and the documents relied by the Complainant that the Complainant has appeared for ‘kavya sastra’ exam on 14.7.2005 , but the opposite party No.2 wrongly issued a memorandum of marks as ‘AB’ in “Kavya Sastra”. Thereafter, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 requesting to rectify the said mistake but the Complainant was directed to approach Opposite Party No.2 . But in spite of several approaches there was no response from opposite parties , hence the Complainant got issued legal notice dated 2.1.2007 stating the mistake mentioned in the marks memo, is deficiency of service and requesting to rectify the said mistake, but there was no response from the both the opposite parties in spite of receiving the said legal notice.
10. To sum up, from the above discussions and coming to a conclusion what appears is that the Complainant has appeared for the “Kavya sastra” exam held on 14.7.21007 at Coles Memorial Junior College, Kurnool and the Opposite Party No.2 issued a memorandum of marks vide Ex.A2 showing the Complainant absent for the said exam, it is definitely a mistake/lapse on part of opposite party No.2 which is an administrative matter which can be taken cognizance of by a consumer forum. Hence, it clear deficiency of service on part of Opposite Party No.2 in issuing wrong Ex.A2 (Marks Memo)to the Complainant .
11. Now the question is to what quantum of compensation the Complainant is entitled. It is easy to imagine what mental torture a student would have suffered during this period and in such case compensation is definitely indicated and the forum assessess the compensation to Rs.20,000/- for the suffered mental agony and as the Complainant was driven to the forum for reliefs the Complainant is also entitled to Rs.2,000/- as costs and all other relief’s are rejected. As no case is made out against opposite party No.1 case against opposite party No.1 is dismissed.
12. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party No.2 to pay to the Complainant Rs.20,000/- as compensation for suffered mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as costs of the case with a month from the date of receipt of this order. In default the opposite parties shall pay the supra award amount with 9 % interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open bench on this the 31st day of July, 2007.
Sd- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : For the opposite parties: Nil
PW.1 Deposition of PW.1 date, 25.6.2007 (G. Sanjeeva Rao)
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Hall-Ticket- No.60037690 of D. Shobha Rani.
Ex.A2. Marks Memo of D. Shobha Rani, dated19.10.2005.
Ex.A3. D.-Form, dated 14.7.2005.
Ex.A4. Office copy of legal notice, dated 2.1.2007
Ex.A5. Letter addressed to complainant by Co-Ordinator to bearing
D-Form Absent mark list.
Ex.A6. Postal Acknowledgement of Ex.A4 by opposite party No.1.
Ex.A7. Postal Acknowledgement of Ex.A4 by opposite party No.2.
Ex.A8. Controller of Examinations (Kakatiya University, Warangal)
Of various subjects by its code numbers held on that day.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties.
Ex. B1. Original prospectus of Kakatiya University for
P.G. and P.G.Diploma Course Page No.13 as to jurisdiction.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri.A. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri.S. Chand Basha, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties
