KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 571/2015

JUDGMENT DATED: 18.03.2020

(Against the Order in C.C. 229/2012 of CDRF, Thrissur)

PRESENT:

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), Maidan Garhi, New Delhi, represented by its Vice Chancellor.

2. Regional Director, IGNOU Regional Centre, Kaloor P.O, Kochi. 

                    (By Advs. K. Mohana Kannan & D.R. Rajesh)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Rajan J.B., F2, KILA Quarters, Mulamkunnathukavu P.O, Thrissur. 

(By Adv. Fatima. S)

2. Coordinator, IGNOU Study Centre, Sree Kerala Varma College, Thrissur.

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER

The appellants are the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties in C.C. No. 229/2012 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur.  The 1^st respondent is the complainant and the 2^nd respondent is the 3^rd opposite party before the District Forum. 

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:  Complainant has joined for the MBA course conducted by the 1^st opposite party.  Complainant firstly enrolled for MBA at 1^st opposite party’s study centre at Thiruvananthapuram.  Subsequently, shifted to study centre at Sree Kerala Varma College, Thrissur.  He has completed his MBA from there.  He has intimated the opposite parties as to his change of address and requested them to communicate with him in the changed address.  Accordingly he received some communications.   Meanwhile, he came to notice that some of the communications in his name were wrongly typed as Ranjan instead of Rajan.  Immediately that was brought into the notice of the opposite parties and requested for correcting the same.  Meanwhile he also came to know that some more communication which he ought to have received from the opposite parties were sent to his earlier address and not duly served.  So he again intimated the opposite parties as to his change of address and repeated the request to communicate him to the present address.  All these communications were done by him through e-mail, letters and by personally meeting the officers concerned.  In December 2010 the complainant passed MBA (Finance) and grade card with professional certificate of MBA were issued to him with the name Ranjan instead of Rajan.  This was brought to the notice of Registrar of the 1^st opposite party by sending provisional certificate and grade card for correcting the address.  Thereafter the complainant was waiting for the invitation for the convocation of MBA.  Since he has not received any invitation he directly enquired with Regional Office of 1^st opposite party and came to understand that the date for application for convocation was over and intimation was sent to him to his previous address.  Every time complainant made enquiries regarding the original certificate but no favourable reply received from the opposite parties.  Huge delay committed by the opposite parties for issuing certificate which caused mental pain and agony to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence this complaint was filed for getting an order directing the opposite parties to issue the MBA certificate in correct name along with compensation for deficiency in service. 

3.  In the version the opposite parties admitted that a mistake was happened in typing the name of the complainant in the certificate, whereas they denied all other allegations regarding the sending of invitation for convocation to his earlier address etc.  They also denied that any wilful negligence happened on their part by mistakenly typing the name of the complainant on the certificate.  They further stated that the complainant has not given any opportunity in writing to the college and dealing officer to rectify the mistake if any committed inadvertently.  They prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.  

4.  In this case at the time of trial the complainant has produced the original certificate already received by him with spelling mistake in his name.  As per the direction of the Forum the complainant handed over the certificate to the opposite parties.  On accepting the certificate from the Forum the opposite parties produced the original MBA certificate without any error on 02.05.2015 which was handed over to the complainant and he expressed his satisfaction.  Even though the complainant was satisfied with this certificate, he submitted that he has sustained severe mental agony, hardship and also he has lost his valuable academic years which could not be substituted by the mere payment of cost.  So he prayed for allowing a compensation for the deficiency in service happened on the part of opposite parties. 

5.  The District Forum perused all the records produced by both the parties and found that there was dereliction of duty on the part of opposite parties which caused in typing the name of the complainant with spelling mistake.  The District Forum found that the opposite parties have not taken any effective steps upon the complainant’s requests until he was forced to file the complaint.  The District Forum also found that the act of the opposite parties caused unnecessary hardship and mental agony to the complainant.  Since the main dispute was settled, the District Forum has not considered the evidence in depth.  The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties 1 & 2 to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for their deficiency in service to the complainant. 

6.  Against this order the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have filed this appeal.  The appellants argued that the District Forum ought to have considered the fact that the complainant had received the grade card and provisional certificate with correct name and address.  The said document can be used as valid document till the receipt of the degree certificate.   The District Forum lost sight of the fact that the complainant had applied for convocation only on 19.05.2011 whereas the last date for applying for convocation as stipulated by IGNOU was 13.05.2011.  However as a special case the application submitted by the complainant on 19.05.2011 was accepted by the opposite parties and sent his degree certificate by post.  Hence the District Forum ought not to have attributed any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

7.  The appellant further submitted that the complainant after receiving the original decree certificate remained mum and thereafter filed the complaint for issue of original certificate.  Thereafter when the opposite parties produced proof with regard to the receipt of the degree certificate by the authorized person of the complainant, he took a ‘U’ turn in the matter and contended that even though he has received the degree certificate his name was wrongly mentioned as ‘Ranjan’ instead of ‘Rajan’ in the degree certificate.  The appellant argued that the District Forum ought to have accepted the contention of the opposite parties that had the complainant informed about the wrong mentioning of the name in the degree certificate then and there itself the opposite parties would have definitely issued the degree certificate with correct name immediately in compliance with the university norms.  The District Forum ought to have taken into account of the fact that the opposite parties had issued the degree certificate with correct name of the complainant during the course of the proceedings itself.  Hence the appellants prayed for setting aside the order or remand the case for fresh disposal.

8.  We heard both sides and perused the entire records.  There is no doubt that there was deficiency in service from the side of the appellants/opposite parties 1 & 2.  But from the side of the 1^st respondent/complainant also there was a material suppression that, he received the original document from the opposite parties through his authorized person in the old address.  If he informed the matter immediately to the opposite parties that in the original certificate his name was mistakenly written as ‘Ranjan’ instead of ‘Rajan’, then definitely the opposite parties would have corrected the error.  This happened during the pendency of the case before the District Forum.  In this case there is some mistake from both sides.  For that reason we consider that the quantum of compensation has to be reduced.  The complainant is not entitled to get    Rs. 25,000/- as compensation.  

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.  The order of the District Forum is modified as follows:  The appellants/opposite parties 1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs. 12,500/- as compensation to the 1^st respondent/complainant.  The 1^st respondent/complainant is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs. 12,500/- deposited by the appellants at the time of institution of the appeal, on proper application.  No order of costs.   

T.S.P. MOOSATH    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN  : MEMBER

jb