KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACADU  THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

                              APPEAL  NO: 222/2010

                     JUDGMENT DATED. 19-08-2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU               : PRESIDENT

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                  : MEMBER

The Principal,

National College of Applied Sciences,

National Nagar, Manacadu,                                : APPELLANT

Thiruvananthapuram.            

(By Adv:M/s Abdul Kharim and Narayan.R)

          Vs.

1.      M.Mebel Das, Das Bhavan,

Rail View, Kottukanjiramvila,

Pappanamcode.P.O-695 018.

(R1 by Adv:Sri.Rajeev Punnapuram)

2.      The Director,                                             : RESPONDENTS

IHRDE, Prajoe Towers,

Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

3.      Zamer Bin Kamal,

Managing Director, Manarul Huda Trust,

MK Manzil, Kamaleswaram, TVPM.

                                           JUDGMENT

SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

The 2^nd opposite party in OP.617/2000 before the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram has come up in this appeal calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below as against the 2^nd opposite party also.  By the impugned order all the opposite parties are under directions to issue the mark list for the examination written by the complainant and to pay the sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation.

2. The complainant has approached the Forum alleging that Mebel Das had appeared for 2 papers in October 1997 for the 1^st Semester examination of diploma course in Computer Application and Office Management having 2 semesters and that the result of the said supplementary examination was not published and mark list was not given to the complainant.  The short question that was considered by the Forum below was, whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  The complaint was originally dismissed and on filing appeal by the complainant the same was remitted back to the Forum below for disposal and the Forum below has passed the impugned order after giving opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence and after hearing them.  On a perusal of the order it is found that the Forum below has fastened the liability on all the opposite parties though it has specifically found that the 3^rd opposite party could not be justified in their actions and the failure on the part of the 3^rd opposite party to issue mark list inspite of the examinations would amount to deficiency of service.  The Forum below has also found that the 3^rd opposite party is legally bound to issue the diploma if it is found that the complainant had obtained the pass marks in the examinations appeared by the complainant. 

3. When this appeal is taken up today the learned counsel for the appellant and the 1^st respondent/complainant were present and they were heard.   It was brought to our notice that the 3^rd opposite party who is the 2^nd respondent herein has complied with the order and the counsel for the complainant/respondent has submitted that the 3^rd opposite party had complied with the order and the complainant had received the compensation ordered by the Forum below.  In the said circumstance and also in the light of the fact that the Forum below has found deficiency of service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party,  the present appeal by the 2^nd opposite party can only be allowed.

In the result the appeal is allowed and the order dated:30-11-2009 in OP.617/2000 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram is set aside as against the appellant/2^nd opposite party.  In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal there is no order as to costs.

S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT

VL.