Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/16/2019

N.C.S.M. Prasad, S/o N.Subbarao - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Controller of Examinations, Examinations Branch - Opp.Party(s)

In person

25 Jul 2019

ORDER

Filing Date: 19.12.2018

Order Date:25.07.2019

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

               Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

THURSDAY THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND NINTEEN

 

 

 

 

C.C.No.16/2019

 

 

Between

 

 

Sri.N.C.S.M.Prasad,

Aged 55 years,

S/o. late. N.Subba Rao,

D.No.581, Andhra Bank Lane,

Balaji Colony,

Tirupati – 517 502.                                                                          … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

The Controller of Examinations,

Examinations Branch,

S.V.University,

Tirupati – 517 502.                                                                          …  Opposite party.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 17.07.19 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.N.C.S.M.Prasad, party-in-person for complainant, and Sri.L.Madhusudhan Reddy, counsel for opposite party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section–12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant with the following allegations -

            2. The complainant paid Rs.2,390/- towards 2^nd year M.Sc. Psychology examination fee through Andhra Bank challan dt:17.04.2018 and appeared for examinations held by opposite party from 09.05.2018 to 15.05.2018 with hall ticket No.24616301058. As a student, he availed opposite party tuition services and paid Rs.6,750/- for the 1^st year and Rs.5,750/- for the 2^nd year. As per the University rules, the time limit for evaluation of answer scripts of post graduation and for publication of results is 40 to 50 days, after completion of last day of examinations. The 2^nd year M.Sc. Psychology last examination was held on 15.05.2018. As per University rules, evaluation of answer scripts and publication of results must be completed on or before 05.07.2018 (maximum period of 50 days from last examination). But contrary to the rules, results were declared on 20.11.2018 i.e. after 188 days from the last examination, which is abnormal delay. As the opposite party violated the rules, guidelines and regulations in evaluating the answer scripts and declaring results, it amounts to deficiency in service. As per the Supreme Court judgment in M.K.Gupta vs. Lucknow Development Authority and GDA vs. Balbir Singh “Holding examination may be statutory duty, but administrative functions connected with such duty i.e. issuing correct marks sheets and certificates in time etc. is a part of service covered under Consumer Protection Act under the garb of non-statutory function”. In Registrar, University vs. Pooja, the District Consumer Forum, Rothak held that “upon the basis of result declared by the University a student is liable to get admission in a higher class and becomes eligible for a service or training. If the result is not declared properly in time then the student becomes entitled for relief”. Nearly 120 students including the complainant suffered due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, in not declaring the results in time and lost the opportunity of getting Psychologist job in Corporate Schools. Hence, he got issued notice dt:20.11.2018, to opposite party by registered post with acknowledgement vide postal receipt No.RN592023471IN, dt:22.11.2018 and the same was acknowledged by opposite party on 24.11.2018, for which there is no reply from opposite party even after lapse of 25 days. It is therefore prayed to direct the opposite party, to refund Rs.2,390/- collected from the complainant towards examination fee with interest at 24% p.a. from 17.04.2018, to pay compensation of Rs.4,90,000/- to the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, and also to pay Rs.8,000/- towards litigation expenses.

            3.  Opposite party filed the written version contending as follows – At the outset complaint allegations are denied. It is admitted that complainant has paid  examination fee towards 2^nd year M.Sc. Psychology examination conducted from 09.05.2018 to 15.05.2018 and also paid tuition fee. It is also admitted that there is delay in declaring results, but the allegations that opposite party has violated the rules and guidelines in respect of evaluation of answer scripts of post graduation and publication of results is not correct. It is submitted that there is no such rule that maximum period of 50 days is fixed for publication of results from the date of last examination, but results have to be declared within a reasonable time, and previously it was taking 40 to 50 days time approximately for publication of results from the date of last examination. The evaluation of answer scripts of post graduate courses is with “Double Valuation” i.e. internal and external valuations. Sometimes external valuation takes more time and the same is not under the control of opposite party, as some other University teaching faculty will be involved in external valuation. In the academic year 2018, there is no doubt delay in announcing results, but there is no willful negligence on the part of University in that regard. The delay occurred due to external valuation. The internal valuation began on 01.10.2018 and completed by 25.10.2018 and the results were declared on 20.11.2018. The post graduate II and IV semester valuation work was going on at the relevant period and as such the delay occurred.  The citations referred by the complainant are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. It is false to say that 120 students suffered due to delay in announcing the results, as they lost the opportunity of getting Psychologist posts. It is admitted that complainant issued notice dt:20.11.2018 and the same was received by this opposite party, but the allegations in the notice are not correct. The opposite party issued registered legal notice dt:28.12.2018 and complainant received the same, but in the meanwhile filed this complaint alleging that no reply is given by the opposite party. There is no question of refunding of fee to the complainant, and payment of compensation also does not arise in this case, as there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. It is therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint.

            4.  Complainant filed chief evidence affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of opposite party R.W.1 filed chief affidavit and marked Exs.B1 and B2.

            5.  The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? If so, to what extent the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the complaint?               

            6. Point:- There is no dispute that the complainant appeared for the examinations held by opposite party from 09.05.2018 to 15.05.2018 with hall ticket No.24616301058, and also paid tuition fee of Rs.6,750/- for the 1^st year and Rs.5,750/- for the 2^nd year respectively. It is also not in dispute that the results were announced in the month of November 2018. The contention of the complainant is that as per University rules, the results have to declared within 40 to 50 days after completion of last day of examinations, but they took nearly 6 months to announce the results, due to which the complainant and other students in that year had lost opportunity to apply for Psychologist posts, and due to that they suffered mental agony, for which opposite party is liable to pay compensation due to deficiency in service on their part.

            7.  On behalf of opposite party, their counsel contended that there is no specific rule that the results have to be published within 40 to 50 days of conducting examinations, and further it is argued that if the complainant has any grievance, he has to file the case against the Registrar of University and not against the Controller of Examinations. It is further argued that no scrap of paper is filed by the complainant to show that he lost an opportunity for applying Psychologist post in between completion of examinations and announcing the results. The counsel for opposite party produced Laws of the S.V.University, Volume-I, to draw the attention of the Forum to a rule that “in all suits and other legal proceedings by or against the University, the pleadings shall be signed and verified by the Registrar and all processes in such suits and proceedings shall be issued to, and served on the Registrar”. The complaint is filed against the Controller of Examinations. The main allegation against the University is that there is inordinate delay in declaring the results of M.Sc. Psychology examinations. As per the University Law, it is the Registrar of University, who is competent to sue or to be sued by any party. We therefore agree with the counsel for opposite party that the complaint is not maintainable against the Controller of Examinations and on that ground the complaint has to be dismissed. Further, we also agree with the counsel for opposite party that there is no documents filed by the complainant to show that they missed an opportunity of getting Psychologist job, due to delay caused in declaring the results. Ex.B1 dt:28.12.2018 is the registered notice issued to complainant by the opposite party denying the contents of notice issued by the complainant. Ex.B2 is acknowledgement of complainant for receiving the notice. Regarding the documents filed by the complainant Ex.A1 is self attested photocopy of examination fee online challan dt:17.04.2018 and tuition fee online challans dt:27.04.2015 and dt:27.06.2017. Ex.A2 is self attested photocopy of hall ticket issued by Directorate of Distance Education, S.V.University, Tirupati, dt:07.05.2018. Ex.A3 is self attested e-mail dt:18.12.2018 of results declared by Directorate of Distance Education, S.V.University, Tirupati. Ex.A4 is notice sent to the opposite party dt:20.11.2018. Ex.A5 is postal acknowledgement due dt:24.11.2018  and Ex.A6 is information furnished by S.V.University under RTI Act dt:29.10.2018. The documents filed by the complainant are not in dispute, but the complainant has not shown that there is specific rule providing for declaration of results i.e. within 40 to 50 days of holding last examination. The opposite party also stated in their written version that “Double Valuation” method is adopted for valuation of answer scripts belonging to post graduate courses i.e. internal and external valuation and in respect of external valuation, it is not under the control of University, as the valuation is done by faculty members of other University and naturally some delay will occur. Sometimes answer sheets will be sent through special messengers to the outside University for valuation. So, for the above mentioned reasons, we are unable to accept the contention of complainant that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As already held by us, complaint is not maintainable against the Controller of Examinations, S.V.University, Tirupati, and hence we are inclined to dismiss the complaint.

            8.  The citation referred by the opposite party reported in 2010(5) ALT 65 (SC) between Maharshi Dayanand University vs. surjeet Kaur, is not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand, to hold that complainant is not a consumer. 

            9.  In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs.                

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 25^th day of July, 2019.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                            

Lady Member                                                                                               President (FAC)

 

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Sri N.C.S.M. Prasad (Chief affidavit filed).

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Sri V. Sudhakar (Chief affidavit filed).

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Self attested photo copy of Examination Fee Online Challan, Dt: 17.04.2018 and Tuition Fee Online Challans, Dt: 27.04.2015 and Dt: 27.06.2017.
	Self attested photo copy of Hall Ticket issued by Directorate of Distance Education, S.V. University, Tirupati. Dt: 07.05.2018.
	Self attested E-mail (Photo) copy Dt: 18.12.2018 of Results Declared by Directorate of Distance Education, S.V. University, Tirupati.
	Notice sent to the Opposite Party. Dt: 20.11.2018.
	Postal Ack. Due. Dt: 24.11.2018.
	Information furnished by the SVU under RTI Act. Dt: 29.10.2018.

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Office copy of Registered Legal Reply Notice issued by the opposite party. Dt: 28.12.2018.
	Photo copy of Track Consignment Report Dt: 02.03.2019/ Proof for delivery of Notice.

 

 

 

                                                                                                                        Sd/-       

                                                                                                                President (FAC)

     

                                    // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

                   

 

  Copies to:-   1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite party.