KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.34/10 JUDGMENT DATED 30.9.2010 PRESENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER 1. Assistant Director VHSE, Chengannoor Vayattupuzha.P.O. 2. Director, VHSE, -- APPELLANTS Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.Vijayakumaran) Vs. 1. Rahul.S. S/0 late Sadasivan Nair Muthupezhumkal.P.O Puthenveedu, Vakayur, Kozhencherry Taluk. 2. T.C.Thulasi Bai, -- RESPONDENTS Principal, VKNM VHSS, Vayattupuzha.P.O. 3. V.Surendran Pillai, Manager, VKNM VHSS, Vayattupuzha.P.O. (r3 BY Adv.B.S.Sankarlal) JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER The order dated 24.9.09 in OP.125/02 of CDRF, Pathanamthitta is being challenged in this appeal by the 3rd and 4th opposite parties calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. By the impugned order, the Forum has directed the first opposite party to pay Rs.12,500/- and interest at the rate of 9% from the date of complaint till the date of order with costs of Rs.25,000/-. Along with the said direction the 3rd and 4th opposite parties who are the appellants herein are also to pay Rs.12,500/- with 9% interest from the date of complaint till the date of order with cost of Rs.2500/-. Thus, the opposite parties 1,3 & 4 are under directions to pay the amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the expiry of 2 months of the date of receipt of the order, failing which they have to pay interest at the rate of 10% from the date of default till payment. 2. The case of the complainant was that he had joined for the second year MRTT (Maintenance and Repairs of Two Wheelers and Three Wheelers) at VKNM Vocational Higher Secondary School, Vayattupuzha on 18.12.2000. The first opposite party is the Principal and the second opposite party is the Manager of the said institution and that though he was admitted in the course in the School, he was informed that he would be allowed to appear for the second year examination only if he obtained an order from the Mahatma Gandhi University cancelling his registration for Pre-degree examination for which he had joined earlier. The complainants further case is that he had obtained a memo to the effect that his registration for Pre-degree course was cancelled and that he could not appear for the second year examination due to one or other reasons raised by the first opposite party. On submitting a complaint before the third opposite party, no action was taken till a reminder was given on 13.6.01 and another petition filed on 11.9.01 to the 4th opposite party. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party in the refusal to allow him to write the examination and also against the 3rd and 4th opposite parties who were reluctant to take remedial measures expected from them which resulted in spoiling the complainant’s academic year. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed praying for direction to the opposite parties to allow the complaint to complete his course in the first opposite party’s school and for awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the mental agony and other sufferings endured by him. 3. The first opposite party resisted by the complainant by filing version stating that the complainant was not admitted in the VKNM Vocational Higher Secondary School for the calendar year 2000-02 as the complainant had registered for the Pre-degree course of the Mahatma Gandhi University. It was also submitted that the complainant had produced the Pre-degree cancellation certificate to the 3rd opposite party and as per letter of the 4th opposite party it was directed to conduct retest to the complainant to admit him in the second year course if he was otherwise eligible. Retest was conducted as scheduled by the third opposite party and the steps were taken to admit the complainant for the second year course if he was otherwise entitled. An additional version was filed by the first opposite party totally denying the allegations of the complainant. 4. The second opposite party has also filed a version supporting the contentions of the first opposite party. 5. The 3rd and 4th opposite parties filed joint version where it was stated that based on the complaint dated 30.5.01 from the complainant, the 3rd and 4th opposite parties directed the first opposite party to intimate the reason for not permitting the complainant to appear for the first year VHSS examination and it was informed by the first opposite party that the complainant was not admitted for the first year course. It was further submitted that a U.D.Clerk of the third opposite party was deputed to verify the records and registers of the first opposite party school and verification was done on 19.6.01. It was found that complainant was admitted in the school and had paid the prescribed fee and had also attended the classes from the commencement of the year. However, the 4th opposite party had directed to conduct a retest in July 2002 and instructions were given to promote the complainant if found eligible after evaluation of the papers of the retest. It was submitted that the third and 4th opposite parties had taken all immediate steps on the basis of the complaint filed and there was no deficiency in service or negligence on their part. 6. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of PW1 to PW4 and Exts. A1 to A8 documents on the side of the complainant. On the side of the opposite parties, first opposite party was examined as DW1 and documents B1 to B6 were marked. It is also noted that the Forum below had examined a witness as CW1 and Exts.X1, X1 (a) & X1 (b) were marked. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that the Forum below had failed in appreciating the evidence on record in its correct perspective and had passed the order without proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case. It is his very case that the Forum below ought to have found that a retest was conducted vide letter No.C1/22801/01 and that the complainant was admitted for the second year course. It is also submitted by him that third and 4th opposite parties were un-necessarily dragged into the litigation and the Forum below ought to have found that there was no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties/appellants. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusion of the Forum below and submitted before us that the Forum ought to have fastened more liability on the opposite parties as the complaint was filed as back in 2002 and the order passed by the Forum below was only in 2009. It is his further case that the first opposite party was taking a prejudicial stand all through and that it was unfair and unpardonable that the first opposite party had concealed the fact that the complainant was not a student of that School and that they had not collected the fees from him. The learned counsel for the respondent advanced the further contention that the 3rd and 4th opposite parties took an year order to direct the first opposite party to conduct the retest after having found that the complainant was a student of the School on conducting the verification thereby, the complainant had lost a valuable year in his carrier. Thus, he argued for the position that the appeal is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. 9. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and the first respondent and also on perusing the records we find that the complainant had a case that though he had complied with the formalities and the requirements made by the first opposite party he was denied the chance of writing the second year examination on the ground that he was not qualified to attend the second year examination. It is seen that he had obtained the Degree registration cancellation in May 2001, which shows that he had complied with the direction of the first opposite party for producing a certificate issuing the cancellation of the Pre-degree registration. It is also to be found that in spite of production of the same the first opposite party was reluctant to allow the complainant for attending the first year examination and also that the first opposite party had not taken any steps in this regard. However, it is further to be found that the complainant had given an application to the 3rd and 4th opposite parties during the first week of 2001 and though the appellants would say that they had considered the matter and issued appropriate orders the available evidence shows that the orders for the retest was issued only in June 2002, though the verification was done in June 2001. Forum below had found that this is deficiency in service on the part of the 1st , 3rd and 4th opposite parties which had resulted in causing great loss and damage to the complainant. It is observed that the Forum has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and also the facts and circumstances of the case. It is to be further found that imparting of education to students shall be done without any lapses and if the institutions are showing this much of negligence and deficiency in service, the students are entitled to compensation and other reliefs. The Forum below has rightly ordered compensation to be paid by the 1st , 3rd and 4th opposite parties with interest and costs. We do not find any cogent grounds to interfere with the findings and conclusions of the Forum below. The present appeal deserves to be dismissed and hence we do so accordingly. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order dated 24.9.09 of CDRF; Pathanamthitta in OP 125/02 is confirmed. In the nature and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER s/L | 
