BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 24^th DAY OF JUNE 2021

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.57/2013

Reshma Om Hegde,

D/o Om Hegde Oora Thota,

Srinagar, Bangalore – 560 050.

……….Complainant

(In persons)

V/s

1.       Registrar (Valuation)

          Karnataka University, Dharwad,

2.       The Principal, A.V.Baliga

          Commerce College,

          Kumata, Uttara Kannada.

(O.P.1 by By Sri. T.P.Rajendra Kumar Sunjay , Advocate)

(O.P.2 by by Sri. Ravi Vaidya, Adv.,)

……….Opposite Parties

:ORDERS:

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR  – JUDICIAL MEMBER

         The complainant filed this complaint against the Opposite Party alleging deficiency in service in not passing the 4^th Semester exam and also not permitting her to apply for revaluation of the 5^th & 6^th semester exams.  Hence, prays for compensation of Rs.49,00,000/- along with travelling expenses of Rs.5,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,00,000/- and also prays to deposit of Rs.50,000/- towards welfare fund of Consumer Affairs.  

2.      The facts of the complaint are as under:-

         The complainant in the year 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 admitted to Opposite Party’s Institution for BBA Course by paying requisite fee and completing other formalities.  Such being the case, the complainant had wrote 4^th Semester exam, but the Opposite Party’s Institution had intentionally failed 3 subjects and not permitted to take 5^th semester exam.  The Opposite Party Institute intentionally failed in Q.T. exam of 4^th Semester by giving 19 marks instead of 20 marks.  If they had given 20 marks, the complainant would have passed and can go to 5^th Semester.  But intentionally, the Opposite Party’s Institution have failed her in the said Q.T. exam, for which she complained to H.O.D. and accordingly, the H.O.D. directed the Principal to pass the Q.T. exam of the complainant by providing 20 marks instead of 19 marks, even for that recommendation, the Opposite Party’s Institution had not passed the complainant by giving 19 marks in the Q.T. exam and hence alleges deficiency in service.

2(a)  The complainant further submits that she immediately filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.18701/2007 (Education) and the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has given a direction to Opposite Party’s Institution on 27/11/2007 by permitting her to take exams of 5^th and 6^th semester and also directed not to announce the results.  As per the directions given by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, the complainant had taken exams of 5^th and 6^th semesters.  Subsequently, the complainant also took examination of 4^th semester in the year 2007 and passed in the said subjects also.  The complainant had spent nearly Rs.2,00,000/- to get an admission to the BBA Degree by availing loan from Syndicate Bank.  Due to non completion of course well within time, she suffered a financial loss and unable to approach for employment.  Hence, the Opposite Party rendered a deficiency in service.      

2(b) The complainant further alleges that after completion of 5^th and 6^th exam, they have not announced the result of the complainant on account of order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka.  Subsequently, on 13.03.2012 the Hon’ble Circuit Bench, Dharwad has directed the Opposite Party to announce the result of 5^th and 6^th semesters.  Accordingly, they have announced the result on 16/04/2012.  But the complainant has not able to receive the answer sheet of the said semesters.  In spite of repeated requests made by the complainant, the Opposite Parties have not given answer sheets to the complainant by giving a reason that there was no order by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka as to provide answer sheets to the complainant.  Hence, in this regard also, the Opposite Party rendered deficiency in service.  Hence, the complainant prays for compensation as prayed above.    

3.      After service of notice the Opposite Party No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed the version contending that the complainant is not maintainable as the complainant had not availed any services from the Educational Institution and she only admitted as a student to avail education for her carrier.   Accordingly, the complainant had admitted to BBA Degree for the year 2005-06, 2006-07, 207-08.  It is false that the Principal of Opposite Party’s Institution had intentionally failed the complainant in Q.T. exam of 4^th semester.  As per the records, it is evident that the complainant had appeared for 4^th semester exam held in the month of April/May2007consisting of 5 theory papers and was declared as failed in 3 theory papers viz., Entrepreneurship Development, Financial Management and Quantitative Techniques.  For the purpose of clarity, the failed subjects marks which consists both theory and internal assessment marks are shown in the below table:

3(a) The Opposite Party No.1 further contended that as per the direction given by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in writ petition No.18701/2007 dated:27/11/2007 they have permitted the complainant to take the exam of 5^th and 6^th semester exam and also directed them not to announce the result till pending disposal of the writ petition.  Accordingly, the complainant appeared for 5^th semester exam held in November/December 2007 and failed in 4 theory subjects out of 5 theory subjects and also appeared for 6^th semester examination held in May/June 2008, wherein she also failed in 2 theory papers out of 5 theory papers and the result of these 3 exams were declared by University on 16/04/2012 in view of the final order made by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka dated:13/03/2012.

3(b)   The Opposite Party No.1 further contended that the complainant had not at all applied to obtain answer sheets of 5^th and 6^th semester by paying any requisite fee to the university.  The University has conducted all the semester examinations of the BBA course for the years May/June 2007, Nov/Dec 2007 and May/June 2008 has to preserved the answer scripts of the exams as well as the entire post-graduate, under-graduate and certificate courses answer papers of the examinations conducted by the University which amounts to nearly 1.5 lakh in number adding to the number of papers for each semester for each student and the same cannot be preserved more than the stipulated time for want of space and the problem of preservation.  Accordingly, the University disposes the answer books within the statutory specified period of one year from the date of holding the examination.  The University has no knowledge about the loan raised by the complainant for the purpose of joining BBA Course and the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint in order to gain alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1.  Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4.       The Opposite Party No.2 in his version has contended that the complainant was failed in 4^th semester as she could not get required minimum marks in three subjects.  However, the complainant and her Father requested the concerned Lecturer to change her internal marks in the Q.T.3 subject to 20 on the reasoning that if she gets 20 marks in the internal assessment her total marks will become 48 and she will be eligible for grace 2 marks which could secure her the totally 50 marks, which is the minimum required marks for passing and if she passes in that subject she would get the benefit of carry over and she can get admitted to the 5^th semester and she can save one year. Sympathizing about the complainant, on humanitarian ground, the said lecturer wrote a letter to this Opposite Party stating that the complainant has secured 20 marks in the internal assessment but in the marks sheet it is mentioned as 19 marks.  On such request of the complainant and her father and also basing on the letter of the said lecturer, this Opposite Party wrote a letter dated:16/11/2007 to Opposite Party No.1 to provide 20 marks instead of 19 marks.  Hence, submits there is no any deficiency in service on the part of this Opposite Party’s Institution and prays to dismiss the complaint against them.

5.       The complainant marked the documents as Ex.C1 to C21.  The Opposite Party No.1 marked the documents as Ex.R1 to R8 and the Opposite Party No.2 marked the document as Ex.R1(a).  Both parties have filed their affidavit evidence.        

6.      We have heard the arguments. 

7.       On perusal, the following points will arise for our consideration;

(1)     Whether the complaint deserves to be allowed?

(2)     What Order?

8.       The findings to the above points are;

                   (1)     Negative.

                   (2)     As per final Order

:REASONS:

Point Nos. (1) & (2):-

9.       On going through the pleadings, affidavit and documents produced by both parties, it is admitted that the complainant had admitted to Opposite Party No.2’s Institution for BBA Course for the year 2005-06, 2006-07, 207-08 by paying requisite fee.  After completion of her 3^rd semester, she appeared for 4^th semester where she failed in 3 theory subjects and the complainant alleged that the Opposite Party No.2 had intentionally gave 19 marks instead of 20 marks in Q.T. exam and if they have given 20 marks, she could have appeared for 5^th semester by taking the carryover of the failed subjects.  Accordingly, she requested the concerned Lecturer and Principal of the Institute/Opposite Party No.2 and the said Opposite Party No.2 wrote a letter to University for change of marks from 19 to 20 in Q.T. Exam.  The same was not accepted by the Opposite Party No.1.   Hence, she alleges deficiency in service.

10.     We are of the opinion that the marks are provided to the students basing on their performance of the examination.  The marks cannot be given on influence or intentionally to fail the student.  The University has no role in obtaining the marks in the exams by the complainant.  Their role is only to announce the result sheet to show how much mark the candidates secured, whereas the complainant alleges that the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 intentionally provided 19 marks instead of 20 marks.  But she has not produced any documents or materials or established why they have intentionally provided 19 marks instead of 20 marks.  Hence, the allegations made by the complainant that the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 have intentionally gave her 19 marks in the Q.T. exam is baseless.

11.     Further, we noticed that as per the order from the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.18701/2007 the Opposite Parties have to permit the complainant to appear for 5^th and 6^th semester exam and not to announce the result of the complainant.  Accordingly they have permitted the complainant to appear for the exams of 5^th and 6^th semesters.  We also noticed that the complainant also failed in the theory exams of 5^th and 6^th semesters.  This goes to show that the complainant performance is poor in the examinations.  Apart from that the complainant had not produced any materials to show that she had applied for revaluation of the answer sheets and to see the answer sheets of the complainant and we appreciate that as per the direction given by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, the Opposite Party No.1 has not declared the result of the complainant and only they have declared the result on 16.04.2012.  As such we found there is no any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party in conducting the exams of BBA course for the year 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and also announcing the result of the complainant as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka.  The complainant failed to establish that there is a deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party Nos, 1 & 2 and also failed to establish that she is entitled to get such a huge compensation as claimed.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-

:ORDER:

The complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Send a copy of this order to both parties.

Sd/-                                                                                Sd/-

Member.                                                               Judicial Member.

Tss