Date of Filing     :30-05-2014

                                                                                    Date of Disposal: 25-02-2015 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Wednesday, this the 25^th day of  February, 2015

          PRESENT: Sri P.V. Krishna Murthy, B.A., B.L., President

                             Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, Member.

C.C.No.39/2014

Narravula Koteswara Rao, S/o.N.Krisnnama Naidu,

Kammapalli Village, Dakkili Mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District.         ..… Complainant       

                                                                           Vs.

                                                              .  

            This complaint coming on 12-02-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri Penubaku Venu, advocate for the complainant and                                                                  Sri A.V. Murali Krishna,  advocate for the opposite party  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

ORDER

(ORDER BY  Sri P.V. KRISHNA MURTHY, PRESIDENT)

The brief averments of the  complaint are as follows:

            The complainant studied  B.Com.,  in Government College, Venkatagiri during 2005-08 through open university.  The opposite party issued provisional certificate / marks memorandum on 09-06-2008.  The complainant joined M.B.A. in  Periyar University and completed the course also.  The complainant applied for convocation certificate in the year 2010  and paid Rs.250/-.  Later complainant paid Rs.500/-  in S.B.I., University Campus  on 29-09-2011.  The complainant handedover original inter marks memo to the opposite party with an application.  However, the convocation certificate was not issued.  The complainant suffered loss and injury.  The complainant got issued a legal notice.  The opposite party committed a deficiency  of service in  not issuing  convocation certificate.  Hence, the complaint  for  issuance of convocation certificate,  return of the  original intermediate certificates, compensation and costs.

            2.         The brief averments  of the written  version of the opposite party are as follows:

            The complaint is not maintainable.  The allegations made in the complaint are not correct.  The complainant is not a  consumer.  The S.V. university shall be sued in the name of the registrar and not the controller of examinations.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground.  The complainant studied B.Com., during  2005-08 through S.V. University.  The opposite party issued a provisional certificate but took it away  as the complainant  has not appeared for a practical examination in the third year. The complainant suppressed the same.  The marks list clearly shows the same.  The course is not complete without appearing for the above practical examination.  The complainant without appearing for the practical examination applied for the convocation certificate and the same was rejected.  The complainant promised to complete the course  but has not done so.  There is no deficiency of service as the course was not completed and the application was rejected on valid grounds.  The same was mentioned in the reply notice.  There is no cause of action.  The original marks list of intermediate is with the opposite party, since the complainant promised  to complete the practical examination.  This opposite party is ready to return the same.  Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.
 

            3.         Now the point for consideration is “whether   the  opposite party  committed  a deficiency of service?”

            4.         The complainant filed his affidavit  and marked  Exs.A1 to A5.  On behalf of the opposite party  filed  his affidavit and marked Exs.B1 to B3.

            5.         POINT:  The complainant  filed this  case for issuance of degree of convocation by the opposite party.  The complainant also sought return of original intermediate certificate, which was  deposited  with the opposite party.  The fact that the  complainant  paid the fee for issuance  of convocation degree certificate  was admitted.  The registration number of the complainant  (hall ticket No.206049004)  was also admitted.  The opposite party issued a provisional certificate cum consolidated marks memorandum to the complainant.  A copy of the same was marked as Ex.A1.  In Ex.A1, it was mentioned that  the complainant was  declared  to have passed the examination and that he has qualified himself for the degree of Bachelor of Commerce.  In Ex.A1, the registration number  was mentioned as 206049004 as admitted by the opposite party in para-5 of the  written version.

            6.         The opposite party  contended that the complainant is  not  qualified for the degree of B.Com., since he has not appeared for practical-III examination.  The opposite party  also  contended that the provisional certificate is not conclusive declaration of the completion of the course.  However, the contents of Ex.A1 are contrary to the stand of the written version.   No doubt, the columns earmarked  for practical / field  work in Ex.A1 for the  first, second and third year examinations are blank, with  as contended by the opposite party.  However, it is not known whether practical examinations will be held  for the course   for all the    three years.  This aspect is doubtful  from the written version of the opposite party.  In addition, the averment  that  the complainant  qualified himself for the degree of Bachelor of Commerce and that he passed the  examination have to be preferred to the  oral version of the opposite party.  The opposite party is relying upon Ex.B1 (marks list for practical III examination).   In the above document, the number of the complainant is not found.  In Ex.B1, the marks list of another candidate  by name             M. Guravaiah, the marks for practical examination are also mentioned.   In Ex.B3, the complainant filled up the application.   From the contents of Ex.B3, it is not clear whether he has mentioned the marks secured in the practical examination.

7.         The stand of the opposite party is strange.  It is not known as to how they have issued  the provisional certificate with a declaration that the complainant passed the examination and that he qualified himself for the  degree of Bachelor of Commerce, when practical examination is also part of the course,  the student   shall not be deemed to have passed the examination without  attending the said test.  Under these  circumstances, how the complainant secured the provisional certificate under Ex.A1 is a mystery.  How the  opposite party issued the provisional certificate to the complainant, is also a mystery.  It is not known as to the steps taken by opposite party for the cancellation of the provisional certificate on the ground  that the complainant did not appear for the practical examination and as such his course was not completed.  It is unfortunate  that  such a thing  occurred,  in a prestigious institution,  like  S.V.University.  The complainant averred further  that based on Ex.A1, he completed the course of M.B.A. from Periyar University, Tamilnadu.  The complainant  has not established the said  fact by filing  necessary  documents.  The same is not relevant  for this case  The fact that the complainant paid the  convocation  fee  was admitted.  The rejection  of the same  as mentioned in para-7 of the written version was  not established by the opposite party.  Since,  the  complainant paid the fee, the convocation degree should be  furnished to the complainant.  This is more so on the basis, that the opposite party has not initiated any steps for the cancellation of the provisional certificate issued by it to the complainant.  The  non issuance of convocation certificate amounts to a deficiency of service.  The point is  held in favour of the complainant.

            7. In the result,  the complaint  is allowed directing the opposite party to issue convocation certificate, return the original intermediate certificate to the complainant.  This order will not interfere  with the right of the university to proceed against the complainant for  cancellation of the provisional certificate.  Under these circumstances of the case, there is no need to pay compensation.  The opposite party shall pay costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant.

            Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the 25^th  day of  February, 2015.

                 Sd/-                                                                                           Sd/-

           MEMBER                                                                                      PRESIDENT

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party

                             EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY

                                                                                                                       Id/-

                                                                                                                         PRESIDENT

Copies to:

Date when free copy was issued: