DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 25^th day of September, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

            :  Smt. Vidya.A., Member

: Sri N K Krishnankutty, Member

                Date of filing: 22/03/2023                                                                          

CC/82/2023

Beena.V

Pournamy, Mukkola,

Kallayam P.O,

Thiruvananthapuram.

Residing at Krishna Quarters 9,

    Lakkidi, Palakkad                                                     -         Complainant

(Party in person) 

                                                           V/s

Principal and Vice Principal,

Nehru Academy of Law,

Lakkidi, Palakkad

(By Adv. Unnikrishnan A P)                 -         Opposite party

O R D E R

Prepared by Smt. Vidya.A, Member

1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief

     The complainant is a student of the opposite party’s institution. She had supplementary exams for 1^st Semester and 2^nd Semester.   Since she could not download the Hall ticket, she took the screenshot of this and wrote the 1^st semester exam with that printout. For 2^nd sem also she had 2 supplementary exams. She could not download hall ticket and it was informed to the Vice Principal two days before the exam. Office staff asked her to bring old Hall Ticket and assured to note in that so that she can write the exam as she is a regular student. On the day of exam, she took permission from the vice principal and attended the exam. During exam, the vice principal informed her that her registration is not complete and asked her to contact the University. She tried in the office land line and the staff who took the phone asked her to contact the section dealing with      Barcoding system. Due to the non-coperation of the opposite party’s staff, she couldn’t contact the University and could not write the exam. After reaching home, she contacted the University and they informed that she could  have written  the exam by remitting super fine before the exam. If she had remitted the exam fee, it could have been informed to the University at least one day before the exam. The problem could have been solved by the opposite parties before starting the exam.

Due to the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, she lost the chance to write the exam.

So she approached this Commission for directing the opposite parties to (1) Give her an opportunity to write the 2^nd year supplementary exam and to pay a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by her.

2. Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite party. They entered appearance and filed their version.

3. The opposite parties in their version admitted that the complainant is a student of 3 year L.L.B, 5^th Sem in their institution and she had supplementary exams for the 2^nd Sem. They denied the rest of the allegations in the complaint. They admit and the complainant came to the college for attending the supplementary exam. But she did not have the hall ticket for writing the exam. Only the students having hall ticket from the University can be allowed to appear for the exam. As per the University norms, the students who got separate Register number Bar code (RNBC) and nominal roll are permitted to appear for the exam. The college cannot permit a student to write the exam overriding these instructions. Even if they permit any student to write the exam, they will not be provided bar code, if their name is not in the nominal roll. The exam paper without barcode will not be evaluated by the University. Even though she had remitted the exam fee, in the site, she did not mention the papers which she is going to write.  This is the reason for non-issuance of hall ticket. The college or principal cannot interfere in the matter. It is the sole responsibility of the University and the institution or the Principal or Vice principal is not responsible for the non-issuance of hall ticket.

University of Calicut is not impleaded in the party array and  for that reason, the complaint is not maintainable. Further, the complainant does not come within the definition of  ‘Consumer’ and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The complainant is not entitled to get the reliefs claimed and the complaint has to be dismissed with cost of the opposite parties.

4. From the pleadings of both parties, the following issues were framed.

• Whether the opposite parties are in anyway responsible for the complainant’s inability to attend the University Examinations ?
• Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?
• Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claims ?
• Reliefs as cost and compensation ?

5. After framing of issues, the case was posted for pre-trial steps and then for proof affidavit of complainant. But the complaint was continuously absent for the proceedings and the case was taken for orders based on merit.

6. The complainant did not file proof affidavit or adduce evidence to prove her case. In the absence of any evidence showing the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, we are not inclined to allow the reliefs claimed in the complaint.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

     Pronounced in open court on this the 25^th  day of September, 2023.

                                                                                 Vinay Menon V

                                                                                  President   

                                                                                           Vidya.A

                                                                                           Member