BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :HYDERABAD(CIRCUIT BENCH AT VIJAYAWADA)
F.A.No.737/2007 against C.C.No.187/2006, Dist. Forum-II,Krishna at Vijayawada.
Between:
Acharya Nagarjuna University,
Rep. by its Registrar,
Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur District. …Appellant/
Opp.party no.1
And
1.Mallisetty Subrahmanyam,
S/o.Satyanarayana,
R/o.opp.Police Station Road,
Vijayawada Road,
Hanuman Junction. …Respondent/
Complainant
2. Rajiv Gandhi Degree College,
Rep. by its Director, Hanuman Junction,
Krishna District . …Respondent/
Opp.party no.2
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.Srinivas Mantha
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.B.V.V.S.Blakrishna Ranjit-R1
Mr.M.Venkataramana Reddy –R2
CORAM:SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER
And
SRI. K.SATYANAND , HON’BLE MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL.
TWO THOUSAND TEN.
Oral Order :(Per Smt. M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
****
Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.187/2006 on the file of Dist. Forum-II, Krishna at Vijayawada , the opposite party no.1 preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant joined in B.Com.1st year in the year 1997 and appeared for final year B.Com in the year 2000 and passed in all subjects except 1st year English and 3rd year Audit and he applied for revaluation of both the said subjects, but the university authorities failed to announce the results in time, hence the complainant again appeared for the said two subjects in the month of September, 2000 and passed English subject of 1st year and again failed in Auditing subject of third year. The complainant again appeared the examination of auditing in March 2001 but again failed in the said subject. The complainant applied for revaluation, but the university authorities failed to send the results and when the complainant enquired about his results he came to know that he passed the auditing subject in the year 2000 March itself. Father of the complainant was working in Hanuman Sugars (Delta Sugars) , Hanuman Junction, and due to ill health he applied for voluntary retirement on 1.6.2001 and he requested his office authorities to take his son into service as there is no source of income to his family and they have assured that they will consider his request. Subsequently the candidature of the complainant was rejected as he is not having the degree. Complainant submits that he was working as petrol boy in a petrol bunk at Hanuman Junction and getting a salary of Rs.1500/- per month and Rs.10/- beta. The complainant submits that as he paid Rs.250/- towards each subject towards revaluation it is the duty of university authorities to announce revaluation results before the date of collection of fees for next term examination and due to the negligent act of the 1st opposite party the complainant sustained huge loss besides mental agony. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation, to pay interest @ 12% on 50,000/-, to pay damages of Rs.1 lakh and to pay costs.
First opposite party filed counter contending that the complaint is barred by Section 24(a) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 and Limitation Act and also contended that it is the duty of the complainant to know about the result and that this opposite party is nothing to do with the loss of earning ands his employment etc. The opposite party submits that the claim of the complainant is excessive and exorbitant and there was no deficiency of service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint .
Second opposite party filed version stating that there was no deficiency of service on their part and that they have sincerely performed their duty in conducting classes and this opposite party is an unnecessary party to the litigation and prayed to dismiss the complaint
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A7 filed on behalf of the complainant, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint awarding compensation of Rs.1 lakh , Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and the 1st opposite party was directed to pay the said amounts to the complainant within one month from the date of the order and complaint against second opposite party was dismissed without costs and 1st opp.party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards costs.
Aggrieved by the said order, first opposite party preferred this appeal.
Party in person present along with his advocate. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant and also perused the grounds of appellant/opposite party no.1.
It is the case of the complainant that he joined in B.Com first year in the year 1997 and completed the course in 2000 and in the first year examination he failed English examination and in the third year he failed Audit Examination and he applied for revaluation of both the subjects but the university authorities failed to announce the results on time as a result of which the complainant again appeared for two subjects in September,2000 and at that time he passed in English and again failed in Auditing examination. He once again appeared for the examination of Auditing in March, 2001 and unfortunately he failed this time also and he applied for revaluation, but the university authorities did not send results of the revaluation and when he enquired he came to know that he passed the auditing examination in the year 2000, March itself and due to the negligent act of the opposite party the complainant was forced to appear again for the examination by spending valuable time and money. The complainant further submits that he paid Rs.250/- towards revaluation per subject and it is only because of the delay of university authorities in intimating him that he passed the examination way back in March 2000 and he was forced to work as attendant in a Petrol Bunk getting a salary of Rs.1500/- per month instead of working in Delta Sugars where his father had worked, only because he did not get the pass certificate on time.
The appellant/opp.party in their grounds of appeal contended that the complainant obtained marks list of 3rd year B.com on 15.11.2002 after issuing provisional certificate of B.Com dt.24.8.2001, the complainant without collecting the marks list after due revaluation appeared for 3rd year auditing examination held in the month of September,2000 along with English paper of the 1st year. The appellant/opp.party further contended that the complainant passed the auditing paper in March 2001 and marks list dt.24.8.2001 shows the same and the District Forum has erred in relying on the marks sheet obtained by the complainant in the year 2002 and the complainant got the provisional certificate in the year 2001 itself and that the complainant is not a consumer and there is no deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite party.
In a recent judgement dt.4.9.2009 the Apex Court in BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD vs. SURESH PRASAD SINHA in C.A.No.3911/2003 held that the School Examination Board is not rendering any service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, the Board is not carrying any commercial, professional or service oriented activity and no ‘benefit ‘ is confirmed nor any ‘facility’ is provided by the Board for any consideration, therefore they do not fall within the purview of the Service under Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. In view of this judgement we are of the considered view that the complainant herein does not fall within the purview of the definition of ‘Consumer’ . Hence this appeal is allowed . However we observe from the record that an amount of Rs.25000/- has already been withdrawn by the complainant during the year 2008 prior to this judgement. Taking into consideration the equities and that the afore mentioned judgement was 1 year subsequent to the withdrawal of the amounts by the complainant this amount need not be insisted upon by the opposite parties.
With the above observations this appeal is allowed. No costs.
Sd./ MEMBER
Sd./MEMBER
Dt.6.4.2010.
