DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678001, Kerala

Dated this the 13^th day of July, 2010

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

CC.No.120/2009

Prebin,

S/o.K.S.Prasad,

Prebin Nivas,

Pangal,

Industrial Estate Post,

Puduppariyaram II Village,

Palakkad 678734 - Complainant

(By Adv.K.N.Vijayaraghavan)

Vs

1. State of Kerala,

Represented by

District Collector,

Palakkad.

(By P.Subramanian, Additional Govt Pleader I)

2. University of Calicut

Represented by its

Registrar,

Calicut 673635.

(By Adv.M.R.Venugopal & C.Mohankumar)

3. The Controller of Examination,

University of Calicut,

Calicut 673635.

(By Adv.M.R.Venugopal & C.Mohankumar)

4. The Principal,

Govt Victoria College,

Palakkad. - Opposite parties

(By P.Subramanian, Additional Govt Pleader I)

O R D E R

By Smt.Seena.H, President

In short the case of the complainant is as follows:

Complainant is a physically handicapped person who successfully completed his final

year B.A in Economics. He was aggrieved by the non publication of his result of the 2^nd year B.A examination due to the missing answer sheet in University in Hindi Part II language Paper III. Complainant was a student of 4^th opposite party college which comes under University of Calicut. Complainant attended the regular classes with great difficulty due to the locomotor disability and he had attended 1^st year B.A examination conducted by University of Calicut in April/May 2005. He appeared in all examination with the aid of a scribe and the University allowed the same. He submits that when the examination result of 1^st year B.A was published, the complainant found from the mark list published in the web site that he was marked as absent in Part II Paper I Micro Economics. He immediately informed the matter to 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. After much follows up, he has received the mark list in the months of October, 2006.

Thereafter in the year 2006 University conducted 2^nd year B.A examination for which a time table was issued scheduling the examination in May 2006. Complainant took Hindi as a second language. Complainant appeared in all examination on the scheduled dates with the help of scribe and with the permission of University. Complainant submits with deep sorrow and shocks that the result of his 2^nd year B.A examination was not published and result of other students was published just before the commencement of the final year examination. When father of the complainant contacted the 4^th opposite party he directed and advised to contact the University Office. Subsequently he met the 3^rd opposite party and enquired the matter. Then the 3^rd opposite party verified the records available with them and informed that the complainant had not attended the Hindi second language and hence result was not published. Then immediately complainant's father submitted the hall tickets and other documents evidencing the appearance in Hindi 2^nd language paper examination. But the 3^rd opposite party requested to contact him after few weeks. Since there was no reply from the University, on 9/7/2007 he attempted to meet the Vice Chancellor of the University. But he could not meet

the Vice Chancellor. However he submitted a representation prepared by him to the Controller of Examination who in turn forwarded the same to the concerned section in the University. It was informed from the section that the answer script written by the complainant in 2^nd language Hindi paper was found to be missing and the University was in active search of the same. However in spite of repeated meetings by his father with University officials no information regarding the answer script was received.

Complainant further submits that he has successfully completed his final year examination with sufficiently good marks. Even after the receipt of his final year result his 2^nd year result was not published due to the missing answer script in part II second language Hindi Paper III. He did not get any provisional certificate of B.A Degree examination. Due to the callous indifference and don't care attitude of the Calicut University and their officials he could not join for any higher studies. He therefore left with no other efficacious speedy remedy approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and filed O.P.No.28504/2007 under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Hon'ble High Court directed the University to publish the result and issue degree certificate.

Complainant submits that due to the delay in publishing result and issuing the degree certificate he lost more than 3 academic year of higher studies and his education carrier is very much adversely affected. This has spoiled his carrier and affected the prospect of his future life. Complainant alleges that the above acts of University amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant alleges that he suffered difficulties, mental pain and sufferings only due to the illegal, irresponsible and callous inaction and indifference of the University. Hence the complaint seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- compensation under different heads.

All opposite parties entered appearance. 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties filed version contending the following. The allegation that 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties did not take any initiative to find out paper and publish the result are false. That there is delay in issuing the degree certificate and mark list is in violation of the direction of High Court order is incorrect. The allegation that the 3^rd opposite party is answerable for missing answer script is false. The averment that the answer script is forwarded by 4^th opposite party to the University is against the true facts and not correct. It is true that the father of the complainant approached the University and submitted petition with copies of documents to prove that the complainant attended part II Hindi Paper III of B.A examination in April 2006 at 4^th opposite party's college.

Opposite parties submit that the usual arrangement for the valuation of answer scripts are as follows:

1. The College/Examination center authorities are to pack each days answer scripts in separate bundles according to the code number of the question paper.

2. A statement showing Regn. No. of the answer scripts as well as key number of absentees related to each code number should be prepared and enclosed with each bundle from the examination center and also other continuation processes.

    

The code number of Part II Hindi Paper III Fiction and General Hindi (Regular candidates) of April 2006 II B.A examination was C16100. In the statement enclosed by the Chief Superintendent of opposite party No.4 along with bundle of scripts with code No.C16100 contain only 138 scripts. No register number of complainant is seen entered neither in the register number of answer scripts nor with the receipt number of absentees. Hence this fact was brought to the notice of 4^th opposite party by way of letter. To this a reply was cast by 4^th opposite party stating that answer script of complainant had been sent in a separate packet along with the other answer scripts and the Principal has forwarded a copy of the statement for verification. The statement contained the register number of complainant only. On the

basis of the letter sent by 4^th opposite party , the opposite parties made a thorough verification and found that the concerned section which despatched the answer script of the above paper for valuation had received a second packet along with other bundles with 138 scripts and the answer scripts in the packet was false numbered by section with false number alloted to Part II Hindi paper III as code No.C16100. The false number was 167808. But the script was returned from Hindi centralized valuation camp stating that the same was part II Malayalam Paper III bearing code No.16094.

The Code No.C16100 packet sent by the 4^th opposite party office actually contained the answer script of Malayalam Paper III, which was later got valued from Malayalam Centralized valuation camp. This matter was again brought to the notice of 4^th opposite party. To this the 4^th opposite party replied stating he had forwarded the Hindi Script of the complainant and also Malayalam script of another blind candidate in separate statement. But it is to be noted that in the statement of Hindi script it is noted as blind and in other statement blind is seen scored off and PH marked from the college. The second packet received in the office with code No.16100 actually contained only Malayalam script. The Hindi script was not actually contained in the packet. In the letter sent by 4^th opposite party he himself has expressed a doubt that there was possibility of inter changing these two answer papers. This possibility was also checked by the office but the concerned sections have not received such script. So it was clear that the answer script of the complainant was not forwarded from the college to this opposite party's office for valuation.

The Hon'ble High Court directed to issue the complainant a degree certificate in B.A. Economics. But the complainant has not enclosed the original plus two mark list along with application for the degree certificate, so the complainant was issued with memo on 27.11.08 to

which he did not respond. Again on 12.1.2009 the complainant was informed to make arrangement to provide the +2 mark list for verification at this office by hand to enable the office to issue degree certificate as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court. Accordingly degree certificate was prepared and despatched to the complainant on 24.01.2009. The judgement to issue the certificate was pronounced on 17.12.08 and copy of the order received on 27.12.08. So there is no delay in issuing the degree certificate.

There is no callous indifference or don't care attitude shown to the complainant, but non receipt of script has made the opposite parties helpless to finalise the result. There is no deliberate action to cause any damage to the complainant by opposite parties. Complainant's father's stubborn stand that marks of Part II Hindi Paper III is to be added in mark list has prevented the opposite parties from publishing result. Even then opposite parties were ready to conduct special exams but that was denied by the complainant. Since no answer scripts are received by this office these opposite parties are not responsible for any damage.

Hence the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost to the opposite parties.

The evidence adduced consists of the affidavit of the complainant and Exhibit A1 to A22 marked on the side of the complainant. Even though all the opposite parties entered appearance, none of them has filed affidavit.

Issues for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and

2. If so, what is the relief and costs complainant is entitled to?

Issue No.1

Complainant who is a differently abled person alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Complainant submits that he is a person who writes exams with the help of a scribe. The facts leading to the state of deficiency is that the opposite party failed to publish 2^nd year BA examination result and issue mark list in time.

1. That in the result of 1^st year BA examination published, it was recorded in the mark list that the complainant was absent in Part II Micro Economic when informed the fact that he has appeared in the said exam to 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties mark list was issued even though belated.

2. That when the result of the 2^nd year BA examination was published, the result of the complainant alone was not published.

3. That the opposite parties has erroneously stated that since the complainant has not written his Hindi second language examination, the result was not published.

4. That even after the receipt of the final year BA examination result, 2^nd year result was not published.

5. That the final year mark list of the complainant was dated 22/06/2007. That the opposite parties has finally published the result only upon the order of the Hon'ble High Court. That the degree certificate was also issued as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court after much delay.

6. That the mark list issued by the opposite parties left the column for marks in the second language as blank which resulted in lots of suffering to the complainant.

Even though 1st and 2^nd opposite parties has filed version, it is seen that none of the opposite parties has filed any affidavit in support of the version. None of the opposite parties

has adduced any documentary evidence. So practically there is no evidence on the part of opposite parties. More over going through the entire evidence on record, the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is crystal clear. The complainant is a differently abled person is born out from exhibit A1. Complainant has written the exam with the help of a scribe is evident from Exhibit A5. Regarding the loss of answer sheet of second language paper Hindi, opposite parties 3 and 4 are blaming each other. It cannot be ascertained from the available evidence that from whose custody it has been lost. Hence all the opposite parties are to be blamed for the loss of the answer sheet. Late publishing of the result, recording absent for the paper for which complainant has appeared is clear from Exhibit A8 and A9. Since the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is clearly revealed from records and since opposite parties has not adduced any evidence contrary to the one adduced by the complainant, evidence of the complainant stands unchallenged.

Having found deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the next question is with respect to the compensation payable to the complainant. Complainant has claimed a total amount of Rs.4 lakhs under different heads. The deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties has resulted in delay in pursuing higher education and job opportunities for the complainant. The fact that the child is differently abled and used to write examination with the help of the scribe, is not relevant for determining the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, but is a relevant fact in determination of the quantum of compensation payable. We are of the view that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) as compensation is reasonable amount as far as the magnitude of the sufferings of the complainant.

In the result, complaint allowed. All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay complainant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) as compensation for the

deficiency in service on their part along with cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only). Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of order till realisation.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 13^th day of July, 2010

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Date of filing: 29/08/2009

Witnesses examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witnesses examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Photocopy of disability certificate of complainant issued by the Medical Board, District

Hospital, Palakkad.

Ext.A2 – Photocopy of the +2 mark list of complainant

Ext.A3 – Photocopy of letter dt.08/05/06 sent by University to 4^th opposite party

Ext.A4 – Photocopy of letter No.B5/746/07 dt.08/08/07 issued by 4^th opposite party to 3^rd

opposite party

Ext.A5 - Photocopy of Final Year B.A Degree examination of complainant

Ext.A6 - Photocopy of Memo No.EA.21/2 dt.29/11/08

Ext.A7 - Photocopy of identity card of complainant

Ext.A8 - Photocopy of letter dt.10.03.06 sent by complainant to 3^rd opposite party

Ext.A9 - Photocopy of letter No.B5/2206/IDC/04-05 dt.28.03.06 sent by 4^th opposite party to 3^rd

opposite party

Ext.A10 - Photocopy of First Year B.A Degree examination of complainant

Ext.A11 – Photocopy of hall ticket for second year B.A. Degree examination

Ext.A12 - Photocopy of letter dt.15.05.07 sent by complainant to Vice Chancellor, Calicut

University

Ext.A13 - Photocopy of letter No.EA.19/1/II BA/April 2006 dt.02/08/07 issued by 3^rd opposite

party to 4^th opposite party

Ext.A14 - Photocopy of letter No.B5/746/07 dt.8/8/07 sent by 4^th opposite party to 3^rd

opposite party

Ext.A15 - Photocopy of hall ticket for final year B.A. Degree examination

Ext.A16 – Photocopy of letter dt.23/7/07 sent by complainant to University

Ext.A17 - Photocopy of letter No.EA.19/1/II BAA/06 dt.28/5/07 sent by 3^rd opposite party to 4^th

opposite party

Ext.A18 - Photocopy of letter No.B5/746/2007 dt.2/6/07 sent by 4^th opposite party to 3^rd

opposite party

Ext.A19 - Photocopy of letter No.EA/XIX/1/II BA/April 2006 dt.01/03/06

Ext.A20 – Photocopy of letter No.EA/XXI/2/09 dt.12.01.2009

Ext.A21 - Photocopy of Judgment in WP(C)No.28504 of 2007 ®

Ext.A22 - Photocopy of letter dt.8/6/07 sent by complainant to 2^nd opposite party

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Nil

Cost (Allowed)

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost