DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.197/19.12.2007 Decided on : 30.05.2008 Sikander Singh S/o Sh. Naranjan Singh, resident of village Sahnewali, PO Jhunir, Tehsil Sardulgarh, District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.Registrar, Punjabi University, Patiala. 2.Post Master, PO Jhunir, Tehsil Sardulgarh, District Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. Vishvpreet Singh, counsel for the complainant. Sh.B.N.Goel, Counsel for OP No.1 Sh.B.D.Jindal, Counsel for OP No.2 Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Sikander Singh (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against the Registrar, Punjabi University, Patiala as well as Post Master, PO Jhunir, Tehsil Sardulgarh, District Mansa (hereinafter called as opposite Parties No.1 and 2 respectively) for issuance of a direction to the opposite parties to provide a chance to appear in the re-appear examination to the complainant; for adjusting the amount of Rs.1800/-; for sending him the roll number for the examination Contd........2 : 2 : to be held in April/ May,2008 by registered post and also for paying him Rs.25,000/- by way of compensation for mental tension and harassment. Brief allegations of the complainant are that he had obtained admission in M.A.(Punjabi) from the opposite party No.1 University and deposited all the fees regularly. As such, he is the consumer of the opposite parties. It has been alleged by the complainant that unfortunately, he got re-appear in one paper of M.A.(Punjabi) Part I and the re-appear examination was scheduled to be held on 22.09.2007 about which the complainant had come to know lateron. For appearing in the re-appaear examination, the complainant had deposited the requisite forms alongwith the fee of Rs.1800/- through bank draft on 29.08.2007. The complainant kept on inquiring from OP No.2 about his roll number, but to no effect. The Roll number of the complainant was never posted to him despite the fact that the date of examination had already crossed. The complainant has thus alleged that the opposite parties were stated to be deficient in service towards the complainant. Due to the non receipt of the roll number in time, the complainant was deprived of the precious chance and now the complainant is having only one chance left to complete his M.A. Part I examination. Mental harassment is stated to have been suffered by the complainant on account of the deficiency in service by the Ops. Hence this complaint. OP No.1 filed its written version and challenged the maintain-ability of the complaint. On merits, it was admitted by OP No.1 that the complainant is undergoing M.A.(Punjabi) from their University and that the re-appear examination was scheduled for 22.02.2007. It was further contended that it was the duty of the candidate to keep in touch with the time table of the University. It was also admitted that on 29.8.2007 the Contd........3 : 3 : complainant had sent a draft of Rs.1800/- to the University and thereafter on the receipt of the fee, the complainant was duly allotted Roll No.8062 by the University and dispatched to him along with other 159 candidates on 10.09.2007 through ordinary post as per rules on the address supplied by the complainant himself. In the event of non-receipt of the roll number, the complainant was himself liable to enquire about his roll number from the office of the university and re-deposit the requisite fee and two photographs for obtaining a duplicate roll number slip, but the complainant never approached the replying opposite party in this respect. As per instructions printed on the examination form, the University is neither liable to refund the fee nor adjust it in the next examination. The complainant had already deposited the requisite fee for the next examination. The complainant can appear in the April, 2008 examination of the University. It was denied that there was any deficiency in service on their part towards the complainant. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made. OP No.2 also filed its written version and challenged the maintainability of the complaint. It was further contended that a speed post sent by the complainant on 29.8.2007 to the Deputy Registrar, Punjab University, Patiala was delivered to the addressee on 31.8.2007 well in time, but no registered letter was ever sent by OP No.1 in the name of the complainant, as such, the complainant is not its consumer. Ordinary letters are duly delivered in time, but no record of booking, transmission, or delivery regarding ordinary letters is kept by OP2. It was denied that there was any deficiency in service on their part towards the complainant. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made by this OP also Both the parties have led their respective evidence in the shape Contd........4 : 4 : of affidavits and documents. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record of the case. The controversy in this complaint is about non receipt of roll number for reappear examination to be held by OP No.1 in September, 2007. It has been alleged by the complainant that despite submission of admission form (exhibit OP-3) alongwith necessary fee (exhibit C-2) through registered post (receipt exhibit C-3) for second chance of reappear in April/May 2008, roll number has not been sent to him by OP No.1. But vide exhibit OP-2 it is made clear by OP No.1 that Roll No.8062 had already been allotted and dispatched to the complainant along with other 159 candidates through ordinary post. During the course of proceedings complainant was afforded an opportunity to move a written application to the University authorities and deliver the same personally in the receipt branch and a direction to OP No.1 was given to deliver the requisite roll number without any further delay to the complainant. This order was duly complied with. Exhibit OP 1 is the Informations and Instructions printed on the examination form which are to be complied with by every candidate before filling up the admission form. The perusal of Instruction No.8 reveals that in the event of non-receipt of the roll number, the candidate is personally liable to enquire about his roll number before 10 days of the commencement of the examination from the university on any working day and re-deposit the requisite fee and two photographs for obtaining a duplicate roll number slip. Instruction No.17 makes it clear that fee deposited once shall neither be refunded, nor adjusted for any other examination due to any reason. The complainant was bound to go Contd........5 : 5 : through these instructions before filling up the form and thus now cannot claim for adjustment of his fee in the next examination. In such circumstances, it will be unjust to ignore Exhibit OP-1 , the Instructions and Informations printed on the examination form produced by OP No.1, which were well in the knowledge of the complainant also. We are of the considered opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove that he had ever approached OP No.1 in compliance of these instructions before filing this complaint. The complainant has thus failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant. The liability of opposite parties thus also cannot be considered to have been established in any manner. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed with a direction to OP No.1 to dispatch the roll numbers to the candidates appearing for the examination through registered post in future to avoid any misplacement of the roll numbers which further cause a great loss to the aspiring candidates. OP No.1 is at liberty to obtain the registered post envelopes from the candidates. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges under the rules and file be arranged, indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 30.05.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.
