BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT TIRUPATI.
FA.No.528/2006 against CD.No.103/2005 District Consumer Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
1.Rayalaseema Management College,
Kurnool, rep. by S.Sudhakar,
Co-ordinator-cum-Chairman,
R.M.C. Group of Institutions.
2.Rayalaseema Management College,
Kurnool, Rep. by S.Suresh,
Branch Co-ordinator-cum-Administrator.
3.Rayalaseema Management College,
Kurnool, rep. by S.Suneetha, Principal,
Rayalaseema Management College.
All O/o.Sri Nagar Colony, Opp.Sakunthala Mantapam,
Nandyal Road, Kurnool.
…Appellants/O.Ps.1 to 3.
And
1.Y.Nagaraja Rao, S/o.Y.Krishna Murthy,
Aged 30 years, Hindu, Employee,
R/o.Door No.18-396, Kamala Nagar,
Kurnool.
…R.1/Complainant.
2.The Registrar,
M.P.Bhoj University,
Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
…R.2/O.P.No.4.
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr.M.Hari Babu.
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.G.Ramaiah Pillai (for R.1).
FA.No.42/2007 against CD.No.103/2005 District Consumer Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
M.P.Bhoj (Open) University,
Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
Through Registrar, Dr.S.B.Goswami.
…Appellant/O.P.No.4.
And
1.Y.Nagaraja Rao, S/o.Y.Krishna Murthy,
Aged 30 years, Hindu, Employee,
R/o.Door No.18-396, Kamala Nagar,
Kurnool.
…R.1/Complainant.
2.Rayalaseema Management College,
Kurnool, rep. by S.Sudhakar,
Co-ordinator-cum-Chairman,
R.M.C. Group of Institutions.
3.Rayalaseema Management College,
Kurnool, Rep. by S.Suresh,
Branch Co-ordinator-cum-Administrator.
4.Rayalaseema Management College,
Kurnool, rep. by S.Suneetha, Principal,
Rayalaseema Management College.
All O/o.Sri Nagar Colony, Opp.Sakunthala Mantapam,
Nandyal Road, Kurnool.
…R.2-R.4/O.Ps.1 to 3.
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. J. P. Sharma.
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.G.Ramaiah Pillai (for R.1).
Mr.M.Hari Babu (for R.2 to R.4)
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO,PRESIDENT.
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, HON’BLE LADY MEMBER.
MONDAY, THE NINTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY,
TWO THOUSAND NINE.
Common Oral Order: (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Lady Member)
*******
1. Aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Forum, Kurnool, dt.31.01.2006 in CD.No.103/2005 opposite parties 1 to 3 preferred FA.No.528/2006 and opposite party No.4 preferred FA.No.42/2007. Since both these appeals are arising out of a common complaint, they are being disposed of by a common order.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that he is a graduate in Library Science passed out from Sri Venkateshwara University, Tirupathi in the academic year 1999-2000. Thereafter, he had joined as an Assistant Librarian in K.T.M.College of Engineering, Konderu, Mahaboobnagar District and was required to get the Master Degree in Library Sicence. He consulted opposite parties 1 to 3 who were said to be affiliated to opposite party No.4 university and paid an amount of Rs.8,150/- to opposite party No.2. The complainant submits that in the brochure of opposite party No.4 it was stated that the study material would be supplied by its Regional Centers and the students can collect the same from the Regional Centers. The complainant further submits that opposite parties 1 to 3 supplied study material for six subjects only and did not supply the material for 7th and 8th subjects and opposite party No.4 declared the examination dates. Even after completion of examinations in the month of August, 2004 the opposite parties did not announce the results till October, 2004. He submits that on account of delay he has lost an opportunity for securing permanent job and also protection of salary as per the rules of the Government. Therefore, he seeks direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards the loss of monetary benefits and also refund Rs.13,000/- towards fees, cost of study material, etc. together with interest at 12% per annum.
3. Opposite party No.1 filed counter stating that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.8,150/- towards registration fee and application fee and the receipt was issued by opposite party No.2. The complainant has to pay separate amount towards surplus study material but the complainant did not do so, and therefore, they could not supply the study material. This opposite party denies for want of information that the complainant appeared for the examination in August, 2004. They further denied that they ever promised that the results would be pronounced in October, 2004. This counter was adopted by opposite parties 2 and 3. It is only O.P.4 who will announce the results.
4. The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A.1 to A.7 allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund Rs.8,150/- and also pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards costs.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, opposite parties 1 to 3 preferred FA.No.528/2006 and opposite party No.4 preferred FA.No.42/2007.
6. On perusal of the material on record we observed that it is an admitted fact that the complainant paid Rs.8,150/- to opposite party No.2 and sought admission in Library Science course on 02.03.2004. The main contention of the complainant is that he was not supplied the study material pertaining to Library Science in spite of the fact that the brochure states that the study material would be supplied to the complainant through all the Regional Centers. We observe from the record that the complainant has admittedly received the study material for six subjects and has not received the material for the 7th and 8th subjects. At page 13 of the Brochure, Ex.A.1 reads as follows:
“The printed study materials will be mailed to the Study Centers. Students are advised to contact Coordinator/Regional Director from time to time.”
Since the Brochure clearly states that study material would be supplied, the act of the opposite parties in not supplying study material for 7th and 8th subjects amounts to deficiency in service. It is also the contention of the complainant that he has appeared for the examination in August 2004 and the results had been declared in October, 2004 due to which delay he has lost an opportunity of making his job permanent and also to receive the higher pay as per the service rules. We observe from the letter dt.05.07.2005 that the complainant has also sought for revaluation. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party No.4 did not file any document to state that the results were announced on time and the date as to when the result of the revaluation was announced or was informed to the complainant. This act also amounts to deficiency in service and we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum has rightly observed that non-supply of the study material for 7th and 8th subjects and also the inordinate delay of almost a year in announcing the examination results amounts to deficiency in service. Since the complainant did not adduce any evidence as to the monetary loss sustained by him on account of these delays, we feel that it is a fit case to reduce compensation amount from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. The default clause of rate of interest at 12% is also set aside. Since opposite parties 1 to 3 had taken responsibility of advertising its affiliation to opposite party No.4 they are also liable. The complainant is also directed to withdraw the amount which was deposited by way of statutory amount.
7. In the result, both these appeals are allowed in part reducing the compensation, while confirming the rest of the order of the District Forum. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
Dt:19.01.2009.
