D.O.F:09/12/2021
D.O.O:20/04/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.No.228/2021
Dated this, the 20th day of April 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Don Sebastain, aged 24 years,
S/o Sebastian Mathew,
R/at Kolliyil House, : Complainant
Chittarikkal Post, Vellarikkund Taluk,
Kasaragod District
(Adv. Jebin Thomas)
And
The Deputy Director (Evaluation),
National Institute of Open Schooling,
A-24/25, Institutional Area, : Opposite Party
Sector-62 NOIDA,
Dist. Gautam Budh Nagar,
Utter Pradesh- 201309
(Advs: T.K. Venugopalan & Madhusoodanan .V)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019,on the ground of service deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
The facts of the case in brief as follows: The complainant was a student under the opposite party for senior secondary school course, by paying required fees. He successfully completed the course in 2018 and passed the examination in 2019. The opposite party issued the provisional Senior Secondary School Certificate on 02.12.2019 as per S.No.A/19 08 0044. But in the above certificate and mark statement, the complainant noticed a change in spelling in his name to the effect DON SEABSTIAN, instead of DON SEBASTIAN.Immediately he had pointed out the said mistake over phone and the opposite party assured that the said mistake would be corrected and final certificate would be issued.There after the complainant joined for BA Degree course in Nehru Arts and Science College and from there it was informed that his name in the Senior Secondary School Certificate mismatches with the names in his rest of certificates and he was further informed that if he likes to continue the educationand appear for the BA degree examination, he need to get corrected certificate from the opposite party’s National Institute of Open Schooling before November 2019. Even though the complainant approached the opposite party several times to get the rectified certificate, the opposite party was postponing the same under false pretexts. The complainant could not continue the education by registering his name for BA degree due to the mistake in the certificate. The opposite party is legally bound to issue rectified certificate and failure to do that would amount to service deficiency.Due to that the complainant suffered mental agony, stress and strain apart from monitory loss. Hence this complaint is filed for directing the opposite party to issue Senior Secondary School Certificate and mark statement with his corrected name as DON SEBASTIAN and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and costs.
The opposite party entered appearance through their counsel, who filed written Version.
As per the version of the opposite party, the complaint is false frivolous and not maintainable.The opposite party admitted that complainant was a student under theirinstitution for senor secondary school course by paying required fees. He successfully completed the course in 2018 and passed the examination in 2019. It is submitted that the student who takes an examination is not a consumer and this commission has no jurisdiction to consider this complaint. The admission to theirinstitution is confirmed by issuing an identity card with relevant admission particulars of the learner filled by the leaner at the time of the admission. The complainant was issued with an identity card in 2017 and in the prospectus 2017-18 it is clearly mentioned that discrepancies, if any, noticed in the identity card may be brought immediately with necessary documentary proof. Applications for corrections/changes in the admission records can be considered within 3 years from the registration in National Institute of Open Schooling, but prior to appearing in the first examination. The complainant had never applied for any correction as per the NIOS norms. The contention that the complainant immediately pointed out the mistake over phone and the opposite party assured that the said mistake would be corrected and final certificate would be issued and that the complainant had applied for corrections by e-mail are false and hence denied. This opposite party could not trace any correspondence of the complainant by e-mail as per latest instructions in NIOS records. The complainant did not submit any correction request within 3 years. He did not follow necessary steps for getting his credentials following proper procedure. The complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents Ext.A1 to A8 are marked. Ext.A1 is the THSLC certificate, Ext.A2 is the mark statement, Ext.A3 is the provisional Senior Secondary School Certificate issued by the opposite party, Ext.A4 is the copy of e-mail dated 11.10.2021 issued by the complainant, Ext.A5 is the copy of the Reply by the opposite party, Ext.A6 is the assignment submission report by the complainant, Ext.A7 is the course fee receipt issued from Nehru Arts and Science College.Ext.A8 is the identity card issued by Nehru Arts and Science College.The complainant was cross examined as PW1.
The opposite party did not adduce any oral evidence but produced certain documents. Ext.B1 is marked during the cross examination of PW1.Ext.B1 is the copy of identity card of the complainant issued by the opposite party, Ext.B2 is the prospectus 2017-18 of NIOS. Ext.B3 is the copy of the basic details entered by the complainant.
Based on the pleadings of rival parties,the following issues are framed for consideration:-
- Whether there is any service deficiency on the part of the opposite party?
- If so, what is the relief ?
The specific case of the complainant is that the provisional Senior Secondary School Certificate on 02.12.2019 as per S. No. A/19 08 0044 and mark statement issued by the opposite party are defective with a change in spelling in his name to the effect DON SEABSTIAN instead of DON SEBASTIAN. Even though the complainant approached the opposite party several times to get the rectified certificate, the opposite party was postponing the same under false pretexts. The complainant could not continue the education by registering his name for BA degree examination, due to the mistake in the certificate. The opposite party is legally bound to issue rectified certificate and failure to do that would amount to service deficiency.
The opposite party argue that the admission to the course is confirmed by issuing an identity card with relevant admission particulars as filled by the leaner at the time of the admission. The complainant was issued with an identity card in 2017 but the complainant did not submit any correction request within 3 years as specified in the prospectus. He did not follow necessary steps for getting his credentials following proper procedure.
The opposite party further submits that it is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Education, Govt. of India and it can act only as per law. As per the provision in the prospectus 2017-18, discrepancies, if any, noticed in the identity card to be brought immediately with necessary documentary proof. As per the Ext.B2 the prospectus, applications for corrections/changes in the admission records can be considered within 3 years from the registration in NIOS but prior to appearing in the first examination. But the complainant had never applied for correction as per the NIOS norms. The contention that the complainant immediately pointed out the mistake over phone and the opposite party assured that the said mistake would be corrected and final certificate would be issued and that the complainant had applied for corrections by e-mail are false and hence denied. This opposite party could not trace any correspondence of the complainant by e-mail as per latest instructions in NIOS records.
Here the document Ext. B3 is the copy of the basic details entered by the complainant. In Ext B3, the name of the student is entered as DON SEABSTIAN.The Opposite Party argue that it is filled up by the complainant at the time of the admission and based on that the identity card and all other documents prepared.
The complainant submits that immediately he had pointed out the said mistake over phone and the opposite party assured that the said mistake would be corrected and final certificate would be issued. But as per the clause 2(12) of the prospectus Ext.B2, the application for correction of mistakes or changes to be submitted within 3 years in proper form along with prescribed fees paid.
The clause 2 (12) of the Ext.B2 the prospects further state that no request for correction will be accepted after 3 years from the date of registration and after appearing the examination.
The complainanthas no case that he had submitted any written application for correction of the mistake in the provisional Senior Secondary School Certificate and mark statement at any time.
The Ext.A4 is the copy of e-mail request dated 11.10.2021 issued by the complainant. It is clearly admitted that “already passed 3 years for correction, so no option in online and offline” The Ext.A5 is the reply of the opposite party to the Ext.A4 request.In Ext.A5, it is stated that “after three years you are not eligible for correction which has been already uploaded in NIOS website”
It appears that the complainant was least bothered and negligent about the recitals in the identity card and the provisional Senior Secondary School Certificate and the mark statement, when these documents were issued to him.He did not take action by filing written request to get them corrected, invoking the provisions in the prospectus. He got enlightened about the spelling mistake of his name in the above documents only when it was informed from the Nehru Arts and Science College that his name in the Senior Secondary School Certificate mismatches with the names in his rest of certificates and that if he likes to continue the education and appear for the B.A. Degree examination, he need to get corrected certificate from the opposite party’s National Institute of Open Schooling before November 2019.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this commission is of the view that there is no evidence for any service deficiency or negligence on the part of the opposite party. The complainant did not succeed in proving such service deficiency or negligence by leading reliable evidence.
But the issue of the spelling mistake in the name of the complainant in his provisional Senior Secondary School Certificate and the mark statement still remain unresolved, blocking his entire further education. It is true that technically the opposite party is not bound to issue a corrected certificate to the complainant, since no request has been filed following proper procedure within three years.
But justice is not done, if no way is found out in helping a fallen person. Here, the further education of a young student is put to blockage, due to the spelling mistakes in his certificates.
Considering the sad state of affairs of the complainant, and in the interest of justice, the opposite party is directed to issue a corrected Senior Secondary School Certificate and the mark statement showing his correct name DON SEBASTIAN, on receipt of an application in proper form, after condoning delay,avoiding technicalities on payment of necessary fees.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibit
A1: THSLC certificate
A2: Mark statement
A3: Provisional Certificate
A4: Copy of e-mail dated 11/10/2021
A5: Copy of reply by Opposite Party
A6: Assignment submission receipt
A7: Course fee receipt
A8: Identity card
B1: Copy of identity card
B2: Prospectus 2017-2018 of NIOS
B3: Copy of basic details
Witness cross examined
PW1:Don Sebastain
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
