Today is the date fixed for order. The matter which had been heard in relation to ex-parte hearing of the case, is taken up for consideration.
In brief, complainant’s case is that he took admission for a correspondence course with OP institute after paying a sum of Rs. 7,000/- on 14.10.2011. However, even after one year, complainant did not receive any admit card or registration certificate for H.S. examination from OP. As repeated visits to the office of OP did not yield any positive result, complainant lodged complaint with police authority and others, served legal notice on the OP but to no avail. Finding no other alternative, complainant filed the instant case for relief.
In support of his claim, complainant submitted Money Receipt for a sum of Rs. 7,000/- which he paid to OP on 14-10-2011, his letters to different authorities, lawyer’s notice served upon the OP and reply thereof by the ld. lawyer of OP, Information brochure, question papers, answer sheets etc.
It is observed from the Postal AD Card that notice of this case was served on the OP on 17-07-2013. After that, the OP initially appeared and prayed for time to file written version. In spite of getting ample opportunity, he did not file written version for which by the order dated 27-08-2013, the next date was fixed on 09-09-2013 for ex-parte hearing of this case against him. Thereafter, the OP turned up to contest the case at a belated stage again by filing written version on 09-09-2013 with a petition praying for vacating the order for ex-parte hearing of the case. In terms of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2011) 9 SCC Page 541 wherein the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to observe that District Forum cannot review/recall its own order, given the fact that any tinkering with the order for ex-parte hearing passed on 27-08-2013 would amount to recall/review of our own order, the prayer of OP for vacating the order for ex-parte hearing of the case was rejected and the case was heard ex-parte against OP.
On going through the photocopy of letter dt. 24.05.2013 written by the ld. Lawyer on behalf of OP we find that he admitted the fact of receipt of a sum of Rs. 7,000/- from complainant. However, it is alleged in the said letter that complainant, without appearing for any examination after filling up the prescribed form, demanded for issuing Mark Sheet and Certificate purportedly declaring him as a successful candidate as he desperately wanted the same for getting promotion in his workplace and as this was legally and ethically not permissible, OP refused to give in to such illegal demand of complainant, yet as the complainant still persisted, OP offered to return the entire deposited sum of Rs. 7,000/- which the complainant refused to accept.
On perusal of the materials on record we find photocopies of some question papers for Senior Secondary examination bearing the name of Board of Higher Secondary Education Delhi and answer sheets without the name of any Educational Board. It is claimed by the complainant that he did appear for the Board examination, but as no admit card or registration certificate was arranged by OP, he appeared for the said examination without the same. On the other hand, it is claimed by OP that as complainant did not fill up the requisite form for getting registration certificate and admit card, complainant was not allowed to sit for the examination.
In case complainant indeed did not appear for the Board Examination as it is stated in the letter of ld. lawyer for OP, one wonders as to how complainant got hold of the question papers and answer sheets photocopies of which have been submitted before us by the complainant. Even for the sake of argument if it is assumed that the concerned question papers were sample question papers, it is not at all believable that OP had supplied blank answer sheets to the complainant along with other study materials, if any. We, therefore, do not find any cogent ground to accept OP’s contention made in his said letter.
It is claimed in the letter of OP’s lawyer dtd. 24-05-2013 that as complainant did not fill up the requisite form, admit card and registration certificate were not issued in favour of the complainant. However, as a service provider, we feel, OP cannot avoid its responsibility to assist a student getting the requisite form from the authority concerned. It is not at all believable that complainant did not fill up the requisite form despite being aware of the fact that admit card and registration certificate are issued subject to submission of the application form duly filled in.
It is also alleged that complainant wanted to get the mark sheet and certificate thereof without appearing for the examination. Admittedly complainant took admission at OP’s institution on 14-10-2011. Therefore, even if we accept OP’s allegation in this regard at its face value, it is highly unlikely that one would raise such illegal demand after a gap of nearly 2 years and therefore, OP’s allegation in this regard is not at all tenable.
It transpires from the letter of lawyer of OP dt. 24-05-2013 that in order to get certificate/degree an examinee is required to appear for an examination under the auspices of concerned Board which is generally held within a year or so as per the decision of the Board concerned. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that complainant got admitted with OP institute on 14-10-2011 with an ostensible purpose of getting necessary certificate of H.S. examination, in case OP extended all its help/assistance to the complainant, in all probability, complainant would have achieved his purpose long ago. However, because of sheer negligence on the part of OP, complainant was denied promotion at his workplace and thereby lost his seniority in his service career for which OP cannot avoid its responsibility.
Considering all these aspects, we are of the view that OP is liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- besides returning the sum of Rs. 7,000/- which the complainant paid on 14-10-2011 and also litigation cost Rs. 2,000/-.
Hence, it is,
ORDERED
that the instant C. Case No. 49/2013 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against OP. OP is directed to refund the sum of Rs. 7,000/- which the complainant paid at the time of taking admission at OP institute together with a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation cost Rs. 2,000/- within 40 days from the date of communication of this order i.d. complainant is at liberty to execute the order in accordance with law in which case, OP shall be liable to pay interest over the total awarded amount @ 9% p.a. from this date till compliance of this order in toto.
