BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1210/2014

DATED ON THIS THE 3^rd March 2017

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY,

President

1.     This complaint filed for a direction to opposite parties to announce the result of the complainant of 2^nd year B.F.A exam and to issue marks-card and also to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-.
2.     The brief facts alleged in the complaint are that the complainant joined opposite party No.3 institution in the year 2010 for B.F.A course and she has passed 1^st year in distinction and then joined 2^nd year B.F.A and she took the exams between 09.07.2012 to 13.07.2012.  So far as opposite parties not announced result nor issued the marks-card.  Opposite party No.3 is giving false promises.  The complainant has also joined 3^rd year B.F.A. court and completed the same in the year 2013.  But, so far as the opposite parties did not issue marks-card relating to 2^nd year B.F.A.  In the year 2014, the complainant joined M.F.A course.  But, the authorities did not allow her to take examination for non-furnishing of 2^nd year B.F.A. marks-card, for which opposite parties are liable for their deficiency in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.
3.     In response to the notice issued by this Forum opposite party No.1 and 3 absent, placed exparte.  Opposite party No.2 alone appeared and filed the following version:- It is admitted that complainant has admitted the B.F.A court in the year 2010 in the institution of opposite party No.3.  The failure to announcing the result of 2^nd year B.F.A. is not the fault of this opposite party and it is the opposite party No.3 which is the institution concerned and responsible for ensuring the result of its students or announced by the opposite party by discharging their obligations.  This opposite party is Karnataka Open University came in to existence to virtue of an Act of Legislature, wherein distant education mode is the mode of imparting education.  The arrangements are entered into between various institutions and open university.  Accordingly, there was memorandum of understanding between the open university of opposite party No.3 for conducting 3 year B.F.A. course.
4.     Clause 15 MOU, it is specifically reflected that conducting of examination shall be the responsibility of open university subject to providing infrastructure.  Certificates for successful candidates shall be issued by open university on application along with prescribed fee. Opposite party No.3 is bound to submit the marks list and ‘A’ form of the student to the University which will be verified for correctness of entries and marks card will be issued.  Prior to that, opposite party No.3 is required provide code for each student for the purpose of carrying out evaluation work.  The opposite party No.3 had provided the code number of another student who had indulged in malpractice instead of providing the code number of the complainant.  Hence, the error was caused by opposite party No.3.  Since, the allegations relating to malpractice was made result and marks-card was neither announced nor issued.  Immediately, thereafter, on the information sought by the complainant, marks-card was issued to the complainant on 02.06.2014.  The claim is exorbitant.  Thereby, opposite party No.2 has sought for dismissal of the complaint.
5.     On the above contention of the parties, this matter is posted for evidence.  During evidence, on behalf of complainant, she has filed her affidavit evidence.  Further evidence closed.  On behalf of opposite party No.2, its Deputy Registrar has filed affidavit evidence.  Further evidence closed.  After hearing arguments, this matter is set down for orders.
6.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not announcing the result and issuing marks-card relating to her 2^nd B.F.A. course, thereby complainant is entitled for the relief?
2.  What order?

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

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative against opposite party No.3 only?

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.    Point No.1:- During pendency of this proceedings, opposite party No.2 has produced the 2^nd year B.F.A. marks-card relating to the complainant in this Forum, the same was handed over to the complainant through her advocate.  Thereby, the question of considering the prayer No.1 relating to direction to announce the result and issue marks-card has been complied.  So far as the compensation and other aspects is to be considered by this Forum, opposite party No.3 did not contest the case.  Whereas opposite party No.2 alone contest the case and brought to the notice of this Forum because opposite party No.3 has provided the code number of another student, who had indulged in mal-practice, instead of providing the code number of present complainant.  Thereby, opposite party No.2 has not announced the result and issued the marks-card since it is a case of mal practice by the student.  Contrary to this material given by opposite party No.2, opposite party No.3 has not made any attempt to show that there is no deficiency in service on its part.  Thereby, this Forum finds that there is no lapses on the part of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 in neither announcing the result nor issuing marks-card relating to B.F.A. 2^nd year of the complainant. Thereby, if there is deficiency in service, it is only opposite party No.3, the institution which has not properly provided the information to the University.  Thereby, there is delay in announcing the result and issuing marks-card by opposite party Nos.1 and 2.  Now, the complainant received the marks-card of 2^nd year B.F.A. course during pendency of this proceedings.  Thereby, this Forum finds that opposite party No.3 alone liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- with litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant, which will definitely meets the ends of justice. Hence, Point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative against opposite party No.3 only.
9. Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, opposite party No.3 alone is liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- with litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant and there cannot be any liability on the part of opposite party Nos.1 and 2.  Hence, we pass the following order:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party No.3 is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant in 30 days, failing which the said sum of Rs.7,000/- shall carry interest from the date of complaint i.e. 21.05.2014 till payment.
3. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party No.3 to undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
4. Complaint against opposite party Nos.1 and 2 is dismissed.
5. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 3^rd March 2017)

                          (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) 

                                      PRESIDENT      

(M.V.BHARATHI)                           (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.)

      MEMBER                                         MEMBER