FA No.832/2008 against CC.No.7/2006 District Consumer Forum,Chittoor.

Between:

Ramalingam Naveen, S/o.Sri Md.Ramalingam,

Aged about 22 years, Occ: Student, R/o.Omkar Street,

Murakambut Village, Chittoor District.

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

The Correspondent,

Prakasham Vidyalaya, C.C.S.Colony,

Doddipalle Village, Murakambut Post,

Chittooor Mandal and District.

…Respondent/Opp.Party.

Counsel for the Appellant                  : Mr.M.Venkata Ramana Reddy.

Counsel for the Respondent             : Respondent served.

QUORUM:  THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, HON’BLE PRESIDENT,

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA,HON’BLE LADY MEMBER.

MONDAY, THE NINTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY,

TWO THOUSAND NINE.

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

*******

1.         This is an appeal preferred by the complainant against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Chittoor, dt.27.12.2007 in CC.No.7/2006.   

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that he was a student from LKG to 10^th class in the institution of the opposite party.  His parents have paid the school fee without any default.  He studied 10^th class during the year 2000-2001 and paid necessary examination fees and submitted an application for Hall ticket.  However, the opposite party did not issue the Hall ticket nor allowed him to write the public examination conducted by the S.S.C. Board during March, 2001.  In fact, when his parents had sought for documents, they took a pronote and permitted him to appear for the supplementary examination held in June, 2001 and in that examination he failed.  He passed the 10^th class in the year March, 2003.  However, they did not return his certificates, and therefore, a legal notice was issued on 11.04.2005.  Since the documents were not returned, he filed the complaint claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- besides return of his certificates.

3.         The opposite party resisted the complaint.  He stated that his school was established about 25 years ago.  There was no complaint from any of the parents in regard to deficiency in service.  The complainant had studied 10^th class in the year 2000-2001 in his school.  His academic career was not upto the standard.  He was irregular in attending the school.  The complainant along with other students had paid examination fee to be held in March, 2001.  The Hall Tickets of the students were received by him from the S.S.C. Board.  He was allotted Examination Centre at Z.P.High School, Doddipalle.  He also acknowledged receipt of the Hall Ticket.  He did not attend to the examination.  In fact he did not pay any amount.  On his behalf the Institution had paid the amount.  After a lapse of four years, the complainant and his father got issued the notice.  He had no academic interest.  Therefore, he prayed that the complaint be dismissed as there was no deficiency in service.

4.         On behalf of the complainant, he filed his affidavit and that of his father along with documents Exs.A.1 to A.10 i.e. Xerox copy of Hall Ticket, legal notice, etc.  The opposite party also filed his affidavit along with Exs.B.1 to B.5 i.e. Progress Report for 2000-2001, duplicate copy of SSC, etc.

5.         Considering the evidence placed on record, the District Forum opined that the documents were kept with the opposite party and the fact that the complainant did not pay the fee was not evidenced by any document.  Therefore, it found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and accordingly while allowing the complaint awarded Rs.25,000/- towards compensation, besides costs of Rs.1,000/-.  It had also directed the opposite party to return the original marks list, transfer certificate, study and conduct certificate, etc. to the complainant.             

6.         Earlier in the appeal preferred by the Correspondent, Prakasham Vidyalaya, the respondent herein in FA.No.335/2008 after hearing both sides by order dt.30.04.2008 this Commission has observed as follows:

            “Today, the documents that were sought are filed in court to show their bonafides.  Considering the fact that the main relief is for return of those documents, interests of justice would be served, if these documents are returned to the complainant.  The complainant is directed to receive the same from the Court by acknowledging the receipt of the same.  We do not see any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/appellant herein.  Therefore, awarding of compensation and costs is not justified.  We, therefore, set aside the order in so far as the relief in regard to payment of compensation and costs.  Since the documents that were sought by the complainant are being returned, the appeal could be disposed of by recording the same.”

7.         Since the complainant had already received entire documents and part of the relief was granted, we do not see any reason to modify the said order contradicting the earlier order that was passed after hearing both sides.  In the circumstances, we do not see any justification in passing any further orders in this appeal.  

8.         In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the above observations which were already passed by us in the above appeal.  No costs.

PRESIDENT               LADY MEMBER

                                                            Dt:19.01.2009.