BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE                        

Dated this the 13^th January 2017

   PRESENT

     SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D   : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

     SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR                 : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDER IN

C.C.No.269/2014

(Admitted on 23.07.2014)

Mr. P Ganesh Bhat,

S/o D.V. Bhat,

Aged about 32 years,

R/at Madavu House,

Madavu Post,

Putur Tq, D.K.

                                                                  ….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri SD)

VERSUS

Registrar,

Karnataka State Open University,

Manasagangotri,

Mysore  06.

                                                               ….....OPPOSITE PARTY

(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sri. KPVR)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER

SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR:

1. 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the same complainant against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service against claiming to issue admission ticket and conduct exams for the M.A. Sanskrit and to publish result by October 30^th 2014, to issue NOC, to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ and to pay Rs.30,000/ as expenses.

2.  In support of the above complainant Mr. P. Ganesh Bhat filed affidavit evidence as CW1 produced documents marked Ex.C1 to C8              detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite party no evidence is adduced.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

      We have perused the complaint. The Opposite party not comes up with any version. The allegation of the complainant is he has joined the course for the M.A. in Sanskrit course with the opposite party and paid the prescribed fee. During the second year of the course the Opposite party has sent the online admission ticket for the subject M.com. instead of M.A. in Sanskrit. He has been denied admission to take examination for the M.A. in Sanskrit. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. However the Opposite party not contested the case even though represented by an advocate. We have considered the following

POINTS ADJUDICATION

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act 1986?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the prayed relief?
4. What order?

     We have examined the evidence adduced and the documents produced. Heard the complainant and answered the above points as under:

1. In the affirmative.
2. In the affirmative.
3. In the affirmative.
4. As per delivered order.

REASON

POINT NO 1: The complainant had produced EX C1 to C4 which establishes that the complainant has availed the service of opposite party in pursuing the education M.A. in Sanskrit from the opposite party and had paid the required fee also. The Opposite party neither denied the fact nor filed his version. Hence we hold the complainant is a consumer answered the point no 1 in the affirmative.

POINT NO 2: The complainant filed his sworn in affidavit in lieu of chief examination and reiterated what has been said in the complaint according to him the opposite party sent the wrong Admission ticket to attend the examination. The complainant had  applied for the M.A. in Sanskrit course and the Opposite party has sent the Admission ticket for the M.com, course. The complainant had produced EX C1 and C4 which clearly shows he has applied for the Sanskrit course but the Admission ticket sent for the M.com course where the complainant not allowed to take the examination. However the Opposite party not come out with any cogent evidence to disprove the complainant contention nor filed his version and not examined himself. This itself shows the admission of the fault and deficiency in service. Hence we hold the point no 2 in the affirmative.

POINT NO 3: As per above admission of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, we hold the Opposite party is liable for the complainant for deficiency in service. The complainant submitted his one year is wasted and job opportunity is also lost for one year. He has prayed for a direction to Opposite party for issue of admission ticket and conduct exam and publish result by Oct 30^th 2014 or in alternative prayed for issue NOC to the complainant and Rs 1.00,000/ as compensation and  Rs 30000/ as expenses. The prayer of issue of admission ticket...and publish result is not awardable hence the alternative prayer to be considered.  As for as NOC is considered it is not clear from the prayer or the pleading what for NOC is to be issued.  Hence we constrained to ignore. The compensation is concern as the complainant contended there is loss of an year. It is to be noted that according to complainant he has completed the first year of the course. We think the demand for Rs 1,00,000/ is reasonable for the loss of one year for a post graduate candidate and he is entitled to get the same. And it is not denied by the Opposite party. The prayer for Rs 30000/ as expenses is at higher side. The complainant had paid Rs 4200/ and Rs  1700/  for the course and examination as per receipt enclosed. Even though for the course fees the complainant had received the books but it is useless for him as he has not taken the examination. Hence in our considered opinion the complainant is entitled for the refund of the fees of  Rs 5900/ with interest at 10% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment and an amount of  Rs 6000/ towards litigation expenses. Hence we answered the point no 3 in the affirmative.

POINT NO 4: In the light of the above discussion and the adjudication of the points we pass the following

ORDER

      The complaint is allowed. The Opposite party shall pay the complainant an amount of  Rs 5,900/ (Rupees Five thousand Nine hundred only) with an interest of 10% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment and an amount of Rs 1,00,000/  (Rupees One lakh only) towards compensation and  Rs 6,000/ (Rupees Six thousand only) towards litigation expenses within 30 days from the date copy of order received.

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Page No.1 to 6 directly typed by member revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 13^th January 2017)

           MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

 (SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR)          (SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

D.K. District Consumer Forum          D.K. District Consumer Forum

 Additional Bench, Mangalore           Additional Bench, Mangalore

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. P. Ganesh Bhat

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: 28.11.2013: Copy of the Receipt for payment of Tuition fees issued by 1^st OP

Ex.C2: 02.04.2014: Copy of the Receipt for payment of exam Fees issued by 1^st OP

Ex.C3:                :  Copy of the Identity Card issued by 1^st OP

Ex.C4: 06.04.2014: Admission ticket issued by the OP

Ex.C5: 26.05.2014: O/c of letter addressed to the OP

Ex.C6: 26.05.2014: Postal Receipt

Ex.C7: 19.06.2014: O/c of the regd. Lawyer’s notice

Ex.C8: 24.06.2014: Postal Acknowledgements

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

 Nil 

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:

 Nil 

Dated:  13.01.2017                                    MEMBER