DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 91 of 01-04-2009<br /> Decided on : 20-08-2009 <br /> <br /> Harbhagwan Singh S/o Sh. Kewal Singh R/o H. No. 19924, Gali No. 28, Parinda Road, Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab School Education Board, Vidya Bhawan, Phase 8, S.A.S. Nagar through its Secretary.<br /> 2.District Manager, Punjab School Education Board, Near Tehsil Complex/Children Park, Bathinda.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. George, President<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, Advocate counsel for the complainant <br /> For the Opposite parties : Ms. Veenu Ghai, Advocate<br /> counsel for the opposite parties. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> GEORGE, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') with the allegations against the opposite parties that he is a student of 10+2 Science Group (Non medical) and applied for giving exams of 10+2 in March, 2008 in the Bathinda centre and appeared under Roll No. 118712. He gave his exams in March, 2008 and the result was declared in the first week of June, 2008, but the complainant was declared failed in Math subject against his expectations. He applied for revaluation and paid the required fee and the result of revaluation was also declared on Internet on 25-07-2008, but was shown “No change”. The complainant was shocked due to unexpected result and remained under the treatment of doctors. In the meantime, counselling for Engineering Colleges started and all seats of good colleges were filled but due to result of the complainant as failed he could not get admission in good college. The complainant applied for next exam for Math which was to be held in July, 2008 and he appeared in the same. The result of compartment exams was to be declared in August, 2008. He applied for provisional result vide application dated 19-08-2008 and the opposite parties gave result of previous exam of March, 2008 instead of July, 2008 and the complainant was shown as passed with 33 marks in Math subject. Thereafter, the opposite parties issued certificate dated 15-10-2008 showing the same result. He averred that the opposite parties played a fraud with his career by declaring him as failed due to which he could not attend the counselling of PTU at Jallandhar. The complainant was to get admission in Giani Zail Singh College of Engineering and Technology, Bathinda but due to the lapse on the part of the opposite parties, he got admission in Baba Farid College of Engineering at Deon in Engineering and is paying excess fee. He pleaded that his career was destroyed due to the negligent act of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint for issuing direction to the opposite parties to pay him a compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,75,000/- for mental tension and harassment etc.,<br /> 2. The opposite parties filed reply and contested the allegations of the complainant taking preliminary objection that complainant has no locus standi and cause of action as he is not consumer. On merits, it has been pleaded that complainant appeared in exam for 10+2 Science (Non Medical Group) as a regular candidate and his result was declared as compartment in Math in March, 2009 as he secured 26 marks in Math. The complainant appeared as a compartment candidate in July, 2008 but due to some technical problem of the computer his result was wrongly declared as cancelled. The complainant applied for revaluation for the Mathematics subject and his result was improved from 26 marks to 29 marks in Math and with the advantage of 4 grace marks his result was declared as “ pass”. <br /> 3. Parties in order to prove their respective contentions have led respective evidence. <br /> 4. The complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, photocopy of certificate Ex. C-2, photocopy of provisional result Ex. C-3, photocopies of Re-evaluation result Ex. C-4 & Ex. C-5, photocopy of certificate of 12th class of July, 2008 Ex. C-6, photocopies of medical prescription slip Ex. C-7 to Ex. C-8 and copy of letter Ex. C-9.<br /> 5. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties produced in evidence photocopies of orders Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-3 and photocopy of General Regulations of examinations Ex. R-4.<br /> 6. Sh. Ashok Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant vehementally argued that the opposite parties declared the result of the complainant in the first week of June, 2008 but he was declared 'failed' in Math. He applied for revaluation and result of revaluation was also declared on Internet on 25-07-2008 and shown as 'No change'. In the meantime, he applied for next exam for Math which was to be held in July, 2008 and he started getting coaching. During the said period, counselling for Engineering colleges was started and all seats of all good colleges were filled but due to the result of the complainant as shown 'failed' in Math, he could not get admission in any good college. He further urged that the complainant appeared in compartment examination in July, 2008 and his result was to be declared in August, 2008. In the meantime, the opposite parties gave result of previous exam of complainant held in March, 2008 instead of July, 2008 i.e. compartment and vide their letter dated 19-08-20098 declared the complainant as passed and certificate dated 15-10-2008 was issued to this effect. He further urged that it was shocking for the complainant that after provisional result card issued in March, 2008 he was declared pass whereas in the original result of 2008, he was shown as failed and even revaluation result showed 'No change'. The complainant thus was not able to get admission due to joke of the opposite parties and lost is career so much so seats in good Institutes were filled. The career of the complainant was destroyed due to the cruel joke and negligent act of the opposite parties. If accurate result would have been declared by the opposite parties, the complainant would have been able to get admission in good and reputed college.<br /> 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties though failed to refute the factual position as pleaded by the learned counsel for the complainant at the same time, he urged that in view of the judgement delivered by the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled Parveen Rani Vs. Punjab School Education Board decided on 24th July, 2003, the present complaint is not maintainable as the concerned candidate is not performing any service for hire and there is no arrangement involved for hiring any service. In such a situation as contemplated by Section 2(i)(o), a candidate who appears for examination cannot be recored as a person who had hired or availed the services of University or Board for consideration. She urged that the result card issued to the complainant on the basis of his performance after declaration of result and the mistake if any, was the result of computer. When the mistake was detected, the same was rectified within the purview of relevant regulations of the Board.<br /> 8. On the other hand, Sh.Ashok Gupta, Advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has relied upon the case titled The President Board of Secondary Education, Orissa & Anr Vs. D. Suvankar & Anr 2007(1) CPC wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it was imperative on the part of the Board to ensure that errorless marks sheet is issued to each candidate. Mistake was the result of negligent act committed by Assistant Examiner and Scrutinizer. The Board was directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-.<br /> 9. We have taken into consideration various aspects of the case, the arguments forwarded by the counsel for the parties and the relevant law on the point as referred to herein above and also observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No. 16 of the judgement referred to ibid wherein it has been held that :- <br /> “Ultimately, it is the Board which has to ensure that the correct marks sheet is issued to the candidates since candidates who appear at the High School Certificate are of tender age. If by mistake the Board indicates to the candidates incorrect marks, it is bound to have adverse effect on the mind of the candidates of tender age. therefore, it is imperative on the part of the Board to ensure that errorless marks sheet is issued to each candidate. The plea of the computer firm that considering the large number of candidates the mistake is not serious has no substance. The computer entries are made to ensure accuracy and to do away with defects which arise from manually recording of marks and to ensure accuracy.”<br /> 10. In the present case the only defence raised on behalf of the opposite parties is that due to some defects in the working of computer wrong result was shown in respect of the complainant. It is an admitted fact if the complainant would have received his correct result, he would have definitely appeared in counselling for his admission in a good Institution of Engineering within the academic year. He has definitely lost an opportunity of getting admission in a reputed college as he had been wrongly shown as failed in Math subject. Not only in his original examination result but also in revaluation “No change” has been reflected in his computer operated result as a result of which it is obvious that the complainant might have undergone mental agony, tension, harassment and inconvenience and also faced humiliation not among is own colleagues but also before his own family member for which he is reasonably entitled for an adequate amount of compensation.<br /> 11. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 12. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is accepted against the opposite parties and the opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 13. The opposite parties are liable to make the above said payment to the complainant jointly and severally.<br /> The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs and the file be indexed and consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 20-08-2009 <br /> <br /> (George)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul)<br /> Member <br />