BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/813 of 17.9.2010 

                                                Decided on:          26.8.2011

Hardeep Kaur aged about 25 years D/o Sh.Nirmal Singh R/o Village Khansian, P.O.Sanour, Tehsil & District Patiala.

                                                                            -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

1.                 Naresh Rana, Desi Mehmandai Mohalla, Near Gate, Patiala, Prop. Raja Graphic Cyber Care.

2.                 Ms. Anita C/o M/s Raja Graphic Cyber Care, Desi Mehmandai Mohall, Near Gate, Patiala.

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Tanmay Markan, Advocate

For opposite parties:     Sh.A.S.Bagrian, Advocate    

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          The complainant had submitted the bio data on line for counselling in respect of admission to B-ed in the year 2010 with Punjabi University,Patiala on 10.8.2010 through the ops having paid Rs.50/- to them. It was represented by the ops that since thee was great rush, the complainant was advised to contact in the evening to confirm the submission of the bio data but in the evening on 10.8.2010 when the complainant approached the ops for getting the print out of the list of the colleges to verify her admission, the complainant with the help of nears and dears  searched the internet and she came to know that she was admitted in Chacha Satya Paul Tuli Memorial College of Education Gurdaspur,  although she was eligible to be admitted in 10 colleges of B-ed of Patiala District having attained rank no.8125 in the merit list. She had also requested the ops to give the preference of  10 colleges in the District of Patiala.

2.       When the complainant approached ops, op no.2 Ms. Anita, computer operator, informed her that due to wrong up loading of the code number of the colleges and bio data of the complainant, she could not get admission in any college of the B-ed in District Patiala and rather by way of inadvertence she had selected District Gurdaspur. She also disclosed that the true action could not be taken because of the fault in the computer system provided to her by op no.1.

3.       It is further averred that because of the negligence and deficient act on the part of the ops, the complainant was compelled to get admission against the management quota in Mata Sahib Kaur Khalsa College of Education, Patiala on payment of Rs.60,000/- and thus the complainant suffered a financial loss. She had also to suffer  mental tension and physical harassment. Accordingly the complainant approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) for a direction to the ops to pay her Rs.60000/- deposited by her in seeking admission against the management quota in B-ed; to pay her Rs.40,000/- as compensation for the harassment and the mental tension suffered by her at the hands of the ops alongwith interest on the aforesaid amounts.

4.       On notice, the ops appeared and filed their written version. It is the plea taken up by the ops that op no.1 is running a cyber cafunder the name and style of Raja Graphic Cyber Cafand op no.1 charges Rs.10/- per hour for using the cyber cafe by a customer. The complainant had approached op no.1 for using the cyber cafon 10.8.2010 and the complainant used the same for one hour and a sum of Rs.10/- was charged from her by op no.1. It is the duty of op no.1 to provide the print out of the matter used by the customer on the internet. The complainant herself used the internet for one hour and op no.1 charged Rs.15/- i.e. Rs.10/- for using internet and Rs.5/- for printing out the matter.

5.       It is further averred that op no.1 had never applied for counseling for B-Ed on behalf of the complainant. It is also averred that at the time of applying for counselling, personal I.D. was issued to the candidate and if there was any error in making a choice of the colleges, the same could be corrected within the stipulated time till the last date. Whatever the complainant had up loaded as per her choice for admission to B-ed, the same was  shown in the net. The mistake, if any occurred, on the part of the complainant as she herself used the net. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6.       In support of her case, the complainant produced in evidence her sworn affidavit,Ex.C1/A, alongwith the documents,Exs.C1 to C19 and her learned counsel closed the evidence.

7.       On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit of Naresh Rana,Proprietor, Raja Graphic Cyber CafCare Desi Mehmandai,Patiala, Ex.R2 the sworn affidavit of Anita c/o Raja Graphic Cyber Cafand their learned counsel closed the evidence.

8.       The complainant filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.

9.       The complainant has not produced any receipt to have been obtained by her from op no.1 with regard to op no.1 having up loaded her bio data in respect of the counselling for admission to B-ed on line with Punjabi University, Patiala.

10.     Even if for the sake of arguments it is accepted that op no.1 up loaded the bio data of the complainant in connection with the counselling of the complainant for admission to B-ed on line with Punjabi University Patiala, it was for the complainant to have shown as to what was the mistake committed by op no.2 Ms.Anita in remitting the exact particulars of the complainant. The complainant has not produced in evidence the copy of the information regarding the bio data of the complainant sent by op no.2 to Punjabi University,Patiala.Even the complainant has not alleged in the complaint as to in what particular college  or District she wanted to seek the admission for B-Ed.

11.     The complainant has not been able to show that she was entitled to be allotted a college in District Patiala for admission to B-ed  on the basis of her general rank no.8125 and  category rank 6013 shown in Ex.CW2, the copy of provisional letter of seat allotment for B-Ed 2010, which could easily be proved by showing that the candidate having a general rank of 8124 or 8126  was admitted to a college in District Patiala.The complainant could produce the record obtained from Mata Sahib Kaur Khalsa College of Education, Patiala in respect of admission to B-Ed 2010 showing that  candidates having one rank upper and one rank lower to her were admitted in the said institution, in the absence of which it will not be possible for us to accept the claim of the complainant.

12.     It was rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the ops that the complainant was provided the provisional letter of seat allotment on the basis of first counselling and in case the complainant wanted to take admission in a college in District Patiala, she could join the second counselling by sending her choice again through e-mail on line but the complainant has not no where alleged that she had made an attempt in this regard and that she ever joined second counselling for admission to B-Ed 2010.

13.     Unless and until the complainant produced the very data sent on line for her admission to B-Ed 2010 to Punjabi University and having pointed out the mistake on behalf of the ops, it is not possible for us to accept the version put forth in the complaint especially when it is the case of the ops that the complainant had made a use of the internet having paid Rs.10/- and the information was sent to the Punjabi University, Patiala by the complainant herself. Accordingly we do not find any substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:26.8.2011

                             Neelam Gupta      Amarjit Singh Dhindsa    D.R.Arora

                             Member                Member                            President