J U D G E M E N T

1.                  The complainant filed the complaint against the OPs U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                  The complaint in brief is that, the complainant in order to receive distance education enrolled himself with the OPs on 11.6.2012 for PUC 2^nd year science and attended for practical examination held in the month of    January-2013.   But for the theory examination to be held in the month of    June-2013, the OPs did not give any information to him and therefore he was deprived of the opportunity to write for theory examination.   This was due to the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.   Thereafter, he requested the OP-1 to allow him to write for theory examination to be held in the month of September.  But the OP-1 threatened the complainant and asked him to pay examination fee of Rs.18,000/- and accordingly, complainant paid the same with the OP-1 on 11.6.2012.   Complainant had made good preparation for the theory examination to be held in the month of June-2013 by reading day and night.   Had he appeared for the said examination, he would have passed in the Ist Class, which would have enabled him to go for some other course after PUC and he would have also obtained job under reservation provided for Hyderabad-Karnataka region in the Constitution under Article 371(J).   On account of negligence on the part of the OPs, he was deprived of this opportunity.   On account of this, the complainant suffered irreparable loss for which OPs are responsible.   Therefore, the complaint seeking reliefs as prayed for.

3.                  The OP-1 filed written version stating that, the contents of para-2 of the complaint are false, hence denied.    The averments made in para-3 of the complaint that, the complainant enrolled himself on 11.6.2012 for  2^nd PUC Science course with the 1^st OP institution, is true.   The averments made in para-4 of the complaint that, the complainant had attended the practical examination held in the month of January-2013 as per information provided by the 1^st OP, is true.   At that time itself, the 1^st OP had given information about theory examination to be held in the month of April.   But the complainant neglected it.   The contents of para-5 of the complaint are all false.   However, the theory examination was not held in the month of June-2013, but it was held in the month of April-2013 itself.     The time-table regarding the theory examination was put up in the notice board of the 1^st OP and the said examination being held by National Institute of Open Schooling, every information was published and furnished in the internet as well as in the institution of OP-1 and OP-3.   The students could very well get this information through internet.   But, the complainant without going to the internet and neglecting the same, failed to write for theory examination and now for his failure, is blaming the OPs.  But the OPs are not at all responsible in any manner.   The complainant, because of his irresponsible attitude failed to appear for theory examination and for that he himself was responsible.  The averments made in para-7 of the complainant are partly true and partly false.   It is false that, the complainant requested OP-1 to allow him to write the theory examination in the month of September and the OP-1 threatened and insisted him to pay the examination fees once again, is false.   On the other hand, the OP-1 informed the complainant that, it was due to his irresponsibility he failed to appear for theory examination and asked him to be vigilant in future and asked him to write for theory examination to be held in the month of October by paying required examination fees.    The contents of para-8 and 9 are false.    As the complainant failed to appear for theory examination due to his irresponsibility and negligence, the OP-1 is not entitled to pay any compensation.   The complainant is not entitled for refund of Rs.18,000/- paid as fees.    Therefore, the complaint be dismissed, in the interest of justice.

4.                  The OP-2 filed written version stating that, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed.   The OP-2 is one of the identified accredited institutions working under OP-3.   The duty and responsibility of the OP-2 was very limited.   The OP-2 is only the study centre, in no way concerned to any examination conducted by the NIOS.   On admission of the students, it is the duty of the OP-3 to send ID card directly to the students, to the address given by him/her in the application form filled up by the student at the time of admission, so as to confirm the admission of the student.    Another helpline adopted by the OP-3 to facilitate the student is by accepting payment of examination fees online and it enables the students to send the details directly to NIOS Regional Centre, Bangalore.     It is the duty of the OP-3 that, all the important issues will be announced and also published through popular daily newspaper well in advance and the same information is uploaded on its website.    The OP-3 discharged its duty.    Further, it is the duty of the OP-3 to send the SMS messages to all students duly announcing important activities like payment of examination fee/dispatch of ID card/exam time table etc.    Further the OP-3 is uploading the same in its Regional Centre website and the students can download the same to appear for the examination.   The OP-3 is to send the hall tickets by post.   The OP-3 has an official website i.e www.nios.ac.in.   All official communications are mentioned in the said website.   All information from time to time are uploaded in the website and all the applicants are required to update themselves from the website to get the latest information.    Since the complainant enrolled with NIOS, there is no need to approach anybody regarding the examination and it is the duty of the OP-3 to intimate the candidates regarding the dates of the examination and further the complainant need not approach the OP-2 for enquiring the date of examination.  No practical examination was conducted by the OP-3 in the month of January-2013 and no theory examination was conducted by the OP-3 in the month of June-2013 as alleged by the complainant in the complaint.   It follows its academic calendar to conduct practical exams during March and September, respectively for every academic year.   Similarly, the academic calendar to conduct theory exams is April/May and October/November respectively, for every academic year.   The result of the theory exam of April-May-2013 was declared by the NIOS.    There is no previty of contract between the complainant and the OP-2.   The complainant is not a consumer of the          OP-2 and there is no deficiency in service nor there is any notice seeking rectifications of any documents.   The OP-2 is the reputed A.I. Study Centre in this area, which has good reputation and value in the eye of aspiring students.   This type of complaint will deprive the image of the OP-2 in the eye of future students and it leads to multiplicity of litigation which comes under defamation.    The relief sought against the OP-2 cannot be awarded in favour of the complainant.   Therefore, the complaint be dismissed, in the interest of justice.

5.                  The OP-3 filed objection stating that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limine.   The complaint is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of parties as the OP-3 is not at all party to the various allegations made in the complaint.   All the allegations made in the complaint are denied as false.    The OP-3 is an autonomous body functioning under the Ministry of HRD, Government of India.    It is engaged in the non-formal system of education.   The system followed is that of open and distance learning and imparts education to about 10 lakhs learners all over the country without any discrimination on the basis of caste, creed, religion etc.    It caters to the need of non-formal education, primarily aimed at school dropouts, employed persons, women, disadvantaged group, physically challenged persons etc, with a view to help their further studies under the open and distance mode.   It is the standard practice of the OP-3 to conduct examinations for secondary and senior secondary classes twice a year i.e April-May and October-November.   The other distinctive feature adopted by the OP-3 regarding admission of students is that, it is done online (24/7) by the learner himself/herself and there is neither a need nor the necessity to physically approach any institutions/person for the admission process.   Additionally, the OP-3 has also identified Accredited Institutions (Study Centre) of NIOS or Regional Centre, Bangalore for getting admission off-line, in the case of students who find it difficult to get admission online.   Further, upon the admission of the students, it is the standard practice of the OP-3 to send the ID card directly to the students, to the address given by him/her in the application form filled up at the time of admission so as to confirm the admission of the student.   Another helpline adopted by the OP-3 to facilitate the students is its practice of accepting payment of examination fees online and enables the students to send the details directly to NIOS, Regional Centre, Bangalore.   The other standard practice followed by the OP-3 is that, all important issues will be announced and also published through popular daily newspaper well in advance and the same information is also uploaded on its website.   The OP-3 is also in the practice of sending SMS messages to all its students duly announcing important activities like payment of examination fee/dispatch of ID card/Exam Time Table etc.   Further, OP-3 follows the practice of uploading its Regional Centre website and the students can download the same to appear for the examination.   Pursuant to this, the office of the OP-3 also send the Hall Tickets by post.    The OP-3 has an official website i.e www.nios.ac.in.   All official communications are mentioned in the said website.   All information from time to time are uploaded in the website and all the applicants are required to update themselves from the website for knowing the latest information.   The          OP-3 further ensures that proper instructions are available on its website under public notice not to approach any touts or brokers for admission to its courses and also to pay only the fees prescribed by it.   OP-1 is not its authorized institute/study centre and it being so, the OP-3 is not in the knowledge of the conduct of the affairs of the OP-1.    However, the OP-3 admits that the OP-2 is its authorized institute.      The complainant is the student bearing Roll No.080008123210 who enrolled from OP-2 for senior secondary course for April-2013 exam.    Since the complainant enrolled from NIOS, there is no need to approach anybody regarding the examination fee.   He can directly apply to its Regional Centre at Bangalore by paying the fee online.   It is not true to say that, the complainant belongs to the reserved category (reference is made to the online Admission Form 2012-13 [Stream 1, Block 1 for April-2013 Exam] wherein the complainant has mentioned the category as “General”).   The address proof given by the complainant in the said Admission Form is that of Manvi, Raichur District.   No practical examination was conducted by the OP-3 in January-2013 and no theory examination was conducted by the OP-3 in June-2013 as alleged by the complainant.    OP-3 follows its academic calendar to conduct practical exams during March and September, respectively for every academic year and theory exams during April/May and October/November respectively, for every academic year.   The complainant had remitted the exam fees for Theory and Practical for April-May-2013 through on-line.   The result of Theory exam for  April-May-2013 was declared by NIOS in respect of the complainant.      There is no previty of contract between the complainant and the OP-3.   The complainant is not a consumer and there is no deficiency in service nor there is any notice seeking rectification of any documents.    The relief sought for against the OP cannot be awarded in favour of the complainant.    Therefore, the complaint be dismissed, in the interest of justice.

6.   The complainant to prove his case, filed his affidavit, which is marked as PW-1 and relied on two documents which are marked as   Exh.P-1 and Exh.P-2.   The OPs as their evidence, filed their affidavits, which are marked as RW-1 to RW-3 and got marked 04 documents as Exh.R-1 to Exh.R-4.

7.      Heard arguments.

8.      The points that arise for our consideration are;

1)     Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OPs against him?

2)     Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

3)     What order?

9.      The findings on the above points are as under;

1)     In the negative.

2)     In the negative.

3)     As per final order for the following;

:: REASONS ::

10. Point No.1 :  

            It is the case of the complainant that on 11.06.2012 he to obtain distance education from 3^rd OP enrolled for 2^nd year PUC science course and in the month of January-2013 he appeared for practical examination, as per information given  by the OPs regarding the said examination, but he could not appear for theory examination held in the month of June-2013 as the OPs had not given any information personally to him regarding the said examination and therefore, he lost an opportunity to appear for the said examination and thereby suffered loss and hardship as well as future career prospects. 

11.             However, it is the contention of the OPs that in the month of  June-2013 no theory examination was conducted for PUC 2^nd year science course and theory examinations were held in the month of Apri-2013 and regarding this theory examinations, information was given to the complainant when he appeared for practical examination itself and besides this, theory examination time table was put on the notice board and uploaded in the website www.nios.ac.in of OP-3 and the students can very well avail the said information from the internet and further, the 3^rd OP announces and publishes important issues through popular daily newspapers well in advance as well as by sending SMS to all students duly announcing important activities like payment of examination fee, dispatch of ID card, examination time table etc and from the website the students can download the same and can appear for the examination and all official communications are updated from time to time in the website and all the applicants are required to update the same.  It is the further case of the OPs that the 3^rd OP follows its academic calendar to conduct the practical examination during March/ September and theory examinations during April/May and October/November in every academic year.   Besides this, the OPs also contended that the hall tickets for examination are sent by the 3^rd OP by post. 

12.             On perusal of the materials placed before us by both sides, it is found that the complainant’s allegations made against the OPs are baseless and mischievous. As per the complainant himself, he appeared for the practical examinations held by the 3^rd OP and the copy of the marks card produced and marked as Ex.R.4 also proves the same wherein the complainant scored 18, 18 and 16 marks respectively in Chemistry, Biology and Physics practicals.   According to the OPs, the examination time table for practical as well as theory examinations used to be sent to the candidates by post and the same is also communicated to the candidates through SMS and are published in important newspapers, website and are put up on the notice board of the institution. The examination time table copy (date sheet) produced and marked as Ex.R.1 gives in detail and clearly about the dates of the examinations, both practical and theory to be held.   That means the complainant looking into the same appeared for the practical exams and at that time it should have been within his knowledge about the dates of the theory exams which is clearly mentioned in Ex.R.1.  So if the complainant failed to appear for the theory exams held in the month of April-2013, it was due to his negligence and carelessness for which he alone has to be held responsible. His failure to appear for the theory examinations shows that he was not vigilant and diligent in pursuing his education and was also not serious about it. When the examination dates are published in so many ways like paper publication, website, SMS, notice board and by post, the complainant should have followed them meticulously and should have appeared for theory exams and he cannot expect the OPs to inform him personally and it is also not the practice to do so and is also not possible, because hundreds or thousands of students may be appearing for such examinations. It is also not possible to the institution to contact each and every student personally and inform about the examination time table.   Therefore, there is no stuff in the allegations made by the complainant against the OPs that they should inform personally about theory exams. Therefore, deficiency in service cannot be attributed against the OPs. 

13.             Besides this, it is found that the complainant had lied before this Forum regarding practical and theory exams as well as his caste.   According to the complainant, practical examinations were held in the month of January-2013 and theory examinations were held in the month of June-2013.  But the OPs stated that the practical examinations were not held in the month of January-2013 and theory examinations were not held in the month of June-2013 and according to them, the practical examinations were held in the month of March-2013 and theory examinations were held in the month of April-2013. This contention of the OPs is found true on perusal of the date sheet marked as Ex.R.1.  Besides this, the complainant in his complaint stated that he is from a poor family and is a Dalith by caste.  But as contended by the OPs, Online Admission Form Ex.R.2 sent by the complainant showed his caste as General.  These aspects show that the complainant is not speaking truth and therefore, he is not a trustworthy and reliable person.   Considering all these aspects, we answer this point in the negative. 

14.             Point No.2:-

                        As the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, he is not entitled for reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.  However, what we would like to observe is that this is a frivolous, vexatious and mischievous complaint filed by the complainant which should have been dismissed with heavy costs.  But we refrain from doing so considering that the complainant is from a poor family and pursuing his education probably with some difficulties.   Accordingly, this point is answered in the negative.  

15. Point No.3 :-

                  As per order below; 

:: ORDER ::

            The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. 

            There is no order as to cost.

            Intimate the parties accordingly.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 5^th day of April 2014)