DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

                                U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                ========

Manjit Kaur d/o S.Malkiat Singh, r/o 69 Kalia Farm, Near New Guru Amardass Colony, Backside Verka Milk Plant, Jalandhar, Punjab.

                                                                             …..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1.       Regional Institute of Distance Education, SCO No.84, Top Floor, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh, through authorized signatory.

2.       The Director of Distance Education, Vinayaka Missions University Salem, Tamilnadu, India.

                                                                   ……Opposite Parties

QUORUM:   P.L.AHUJA                                                  PRESIDENT

                   RAJINDER SINGH GILL                                MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA         MEMBER

ARGUED BY:    Sh.V.S.Rana, Counsel for complainant.

                         Sh.Neeraj Sahni, Counsel for OP No.1.

                         OP No.2 exparte.   

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Ms.Manjit Kaur, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Regional Institute of Distance Education & Anr. - Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that the regional office of OPs is situated in Sector 38, Chandigarh. The complainant paid the requisite fee for the course of M.Phil (Physical Education) to OP No.1 at Chandigarh and got herself admitted in the one year degree course with OP No.2 through OP No.1. The complainant was already having matriculation certificate, Senior Secondary (12^th class) Certificate, B.A.III Certificate & Degree and Master of Arts Certificate, copies of which are Annexure C-1 to C-5. The complainant after admission in the one year degree course i.e. M.Phil (Physical Education) through OP No.1 paid the requisite admission fee on 29.8.2007 i.e. Rs.12,400/-, Rs.4000/- on 5.10.2007 and Rs.3250/- as examination fee on 12.10.2007. On 4.6.2008 the complainant also paid a sum of Rs.1500/-. Copies of receipts are annexed as Annexure C-6 to C-9. An application for admission to convocation was also filled by the complainant for M.Phil Physical Education Degree and the University OP No.2 also issued examination hall ticket and identity card to the complainant, copies of which are Annexure C-10 to C-12. The complainant passed her M.Phil (Physical Education) degree course and received detailed marks sheet in the year 2009 from OP No.2, copy of which is Annexure C-13. Thereafter the complainant also paid demand draft of Rs.1025/- as fee to OP No.2 for obtaining the degree. Copies of the receipt of draft and application sent to OP No.2 through email are Annexure  C-14 & C-15.  The complainant also sent reminder dated 2.11.2010 through registered post and another reminder in the year 2011, copies of which are Annexure C-16 & C-17. The complainant paid the demand draft for obtaining the degree as per instructions issued by the Registrar of the University, copy of which is Annexure C-18. It has been contended that inspite of repeated reminders sent through emails and making request to OP No.1 for getting the degree from OP No.2 the complainant was not provided degree till the filing of the complaint. The latest email sent to OP No.2 is Annexure C-19. The complainant has alleged harassment, mental agony and financial loss due to the negligent act of the OPs. She has made a prayer for a direction to the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.1 lac for harassment and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses. She has also made a prayer for a direction to the OPs to issue degree of M.Phil (Physical Education).

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs. OP No.2 did not appear, despite service and it was proceeded exparte on 28.2.2013.

3.                OP No.1 in its written reply has pleaded that it arranged the PCP classes for the complainant at Chandigarh and also got issued roll number/hall ticket and marksheet from OP No.2.  It has been averred that the complainant never approached the OP No.1 for degree of M.Phil in question. All the correspondence was done by the complainant with OP No.2 without the knowledge of OP No.1. It has been averred that during the pendency of the present proceedings, when the OP No.1 came to know that the complainant had not got the degree in question from OP No.2, it deputed an official to get the same from the office of OP No.2. Then the official came to know that the delay was due to non submission of the provisional certificate and not providing the details of the fee for the same in the application form for issuance of degree in question with the office of OP No.2. Thereafter, the official of OP No.1 got issued the provisional certificate and also gave the details of the payment of fee to OP No.2 and got the degree in question from OP No.2 by hand. However, complainant has refused to receive the same under the receipt at the office of OP No.1. OP No.1 submitted the original provisional certificate and original degree of Master of Philosophy before this Forum. It has been also stated that OP No.1 through email and vide letter No.3906 dated 22.2.2013 informed the complainant to collect the provisional certificate and degree of M.Phil (Annexure R-1 to R-4).

4.                In her replication, the complainant has pleaded that the OPs have been negligent in providing the degree to her inspite of repeated visits before OP No.1 for providing degree and repeated reminders sent through email to OP No.2. It has been stated that the complainant visited Chandigarh after obtaining permission from her employer and approached OP No.1 a number of times for getting degree of M.Phil in question but OP No.1 expressed its inability for providing the degree. The copies of permissions granted by the employer of the complainant to visit Chandigarh are annexed as Annexure C-20 (Colly.). It has been averred that the complainant never refused to receive degree and rather in compliance with the letter dated 22.2.2013 issued by OP No.1 to the complainant, she visited OP No.1 on 28.2.2013 but OP No.1 flatly refused to give the degree and rather threatened that she may receive the degree with the writing that she will not pursue the matter before this Forum. The complainant refused to do so and sent a letter to OP No.1 through courier. It has been stated that, thereafter OP No.1 again sent a letter just to save its skin.

5.                The complainant and OP No.1 led evidence in support of their contentions.

6.                We have scanned the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant and the learned Counsel for OP No.1.

7.                At the outset, it is worth mentioning that the original provisional certificate and original degree of Master of Philosophy in Physical Education of the complainant were produced by the learned Counsel for OP No.1 during the pendency of this complaint and the same were handed over to the learned Counsel for the complainant on 17.5.2013 who gave a receipt in this regard which was handed over in original to the learned Counsel for the OP No.1. So, the only question that remains for determination in this case is whether the OPs are guilty of deficiency in service or not.

8.                It is the admitted case of OP No.1 that the complainant got herself admitted for one year degree course i.e. M.Phil (Physical Education) through it and paid the requisite admission fee, examination fee etc. vide receipts Annexure C-6 to C-9. The complainant also filled an application for admission to the convocation – Annexure    C-10 for M.Phil (Physical Education) degree. OP No.2 also issued examination hall ticket and identity card, copies of which are Annexure C-10 to C-12 in favour of the complainant.  The complainant passed her M.Phil (Physical Education) degree course and received detailed marksheet, copy of which is Annexure C-13 from OP No.2. She also made payment of an amount of Rs.1025/- to OP No.2 by demand draft (Annexure C-14) for obtaining the degree. The complainant has produced the letter – Annexure C-15 sent to OP No.2 in which it has been clearly mentioned that she has already sent the draft of the amount of Rs.1025/- with all photostat copies of certificates and had repeatedly sent emails dated 24.1.2011, 4.2.2011, 16.5.2011, 4.7.2011, 27.8.2011 and 8.2.2012 but she had not received the M.Phil degree certificate and the provisional certificate. Significantly, OP No.2 has not appeared to contest the case. The allegations of the complainant against OP No.2 have gone unrebutted. It is proved on record that the complainant despite having passed M.Phil Physical Education degree course from OP No.2 in the year 2009 could not get the M.Phil degree certificate as well as the provisional certificate despite repeated reminders to OP No.2. We find it a definite case of harassment, mental agony and financial loss on account of deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2.

9.                As far as the role of OP No.1 is concerned, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for OP No.1 that the complainant never approached OP No.1 regarding delay of degree of M.Phil and she herself independently applied and corresponded with OP No.2 for obtaining the degree and the certificate. He has contended that the complainant did not comply with the instructions – Annexure C-18 of the University and further did not give the details of remittance of fee in the application – Annexure  C-10. The learned Counsel for OP No.1 has argued that despite the above conduct of the complainant, when OP No.1 came to know about the non receipt of the degree in question from OP No.2, an official was deputed to get the same from OP No.2 and after bringing the same the complainant was asked to receive the same under receipt from the office of OP No.1 but she refused to give any receipt. He has argued that an email message and letter dated 22.2.2013 – Annexure R-1 were sent to the complainant for collecting the documents but she did not turn up, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.

10.              We have carefully considered the above arguments of the learned Counsel for OP No.1 but we find that the same are devoid of any force. The complainant has specifically pleaded in para No.6 of the complaint that she requested OP No.1 many times to get her degree from OP No.2 as she got admission for degree course through OP No.1 but no degree was provided till date by the OPs. It has also been pleaded by the complainant that inspite of repeated reminders sent through email and having received requisite amount for sending the degree, OPs have rendered negligent services in performing their duties. The allegations of the complainant in her replication also show that she visited Chandigarh after obtaining permission from her employer and approached OP No.1 a number of times for getting degree of M.Phil in question but OP No.1 every time showed his inability for providing the degree. The above contention of the complainant is proved from the copies of applications dated 23.11.2012, 4.9.2012, 6.11.2012, 19.12.2012 and 4.2.2012 – Annexure C-20 (Colly.). Otherwise also, since the complainant is an inhabitant of Jalandhar and she got herself admitted in M.Phil Physical Education degree course of OP No.2 through OP No.1 it cannot be believed that she never approached OP No.1 for getting the original degree. The copies of applications – Annexure C-20 (Colly.) prove that the complainant has been visiting Chandigarh after taking permission for leave from her employer at Jalandhar. In regard to the contention of OP No.1 that the complainant was sent a letter on 22.2.2013 – Annexure C-21 for collecting the degree, the pleadings of the complainant coupled with her letter dated 28.2.2013 – Annexure C-22 show that she reached the office of OP No.1 on 28.2.2013 for getting the degree but OP No.1 refused to give the degree and put the condition that she should withdraw her case (complaint pending before this Forum). However, since she had suffered mental and physical harassment for getting the degree, so she refused to withdraw the case. OP No.1 refused to receive her letter, therefore, she sent the letter – Annexure C-22 through courier to OP No.1 (Annexure C-23). We find sufficient force in the contention of the complainant that after she sent the letter – Annexure C-22, OP No.1 again sent a letter just to save his skin. We are not impressed with this contention that the complainant went to the office of OP No.1 but refused to give a receipt for obtaining the original degree and provisional certificate. The circumstances prove that OP No.1 pressurized the complainant to withdraw her complaint and when she did not accept this proposal, she was not handed over the original degree and provisional certificate by OP No.1. Consequently, both the OPs are guilty of deficiency in service on their part.

11.              For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed. OPs are directed :-

i)                 To make payment of an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant for physical & mental harassment, financial loss and deficiency in service.

ii)                To make payment of an amount of Rs.7500/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses.

12.              This order shall be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OPs shall be liable to refund the above said awarded amount to the complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, till its realization, besides costs of litigation, as mentioned above. The liability of the OPs shall be joint and several.

13.              The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.