BY SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> This is a complaint seeking a direction to the opp. parties to issue NCVT certificate and claiming compensation.<br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant was a student of the 2nd opp.party in Date Preparation and Computer Software from August 1995 to July 1996. A total fee of Rs.5500/- was paid for the full The complainant appeared and passed the examination held in July 1996 with Admission ticket No.25324 A Provisional National Trade Certificate was issued by Government of Kerala Industrial Training Department on 6.7.1997. Thereafter the complainant approached the 2nd opp.party for the original NCVT certificate on several occasions. It was revealed in July 2001` that the 2nd opp.party not functioning and therefore she approached the first opp.party despite several approaches she was not issued with here original NCVT certificate. Due to none receipt of original trade certificate the complainant was not in a position to get a suitable job. She was repeated from my husband family say that she has not passed NCVT certificate since the first opp.party was not available. The complainant approached the 1st opp.party who has collected the examination fee and issued the registration for the examination and Provisional Trade Certificate who responsible for issuing the original NCVT certificate. But the 1st opp.party also ignored requested totally this regarding the responsibility to issue the certificate. Hence the complaint. <br /> <br /> The first opp.party filed a version contending interalia. The complaint is not maintainable either in law on or facts. It is admitted that the complainant was a student in the 2nd opp.party during the period 95-96 and appeared for the All India Trade Test with roll No.25324 conducted in July1995 and passed the prescribed Trade test. She has been awarded with the PNTC No.04332. As per the records available the 2nd opp.party was de-affiliated due to non up gradation. The 2nd opp.party neither demanded. Blank NTC for the complainant nor handed over the records to the department to facilitate the issue of NTC to the passed out candidates. The usual procedure for issuing the NTC to the passed trainees is that the concerned Principals of ITI/ITC’s collected the required N.T.Cs from Directorate which have affiliation. The priuncxipal should fill all the relevant details and submit them to the Directorate for getting the signature of NCVT Secretary and after providing the signature of the same will be forwarded to the Director Central of Employment and Training, New Delhi for getting the signature and after they will be issued to the concerned Principal of ITC’s for distribution. The concerned principle to this case did not turn up to collect the NTC from the 1st opp.party. The NTC to the complainant could be issued only after completion of the formalities of handing over the records to the nearest ITI at Chackai, Trivandrum. action had already been taken. The NTC will be issued to the complainant through the principal ITI Chackai after completing all the formalities. The 2nd opp.party filed a separate version contending interalia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. <br /> <br /> It is admitted that the complainant was a student of the 2nd opp.party and though she has appeared for the All India Trade Test and was passed in test. The averments in the para 3 of the complaint is not correct and hence denied. It is true that the complainant has approached this opp.party for original Trade Test Certificate, but by that time this opp.party has would up their services and has handed over all the required documents of the authorities and the complainant was directed to contact the Directorate. The complainant was not at all diligent in to getting her certificate in due time as she has approached the concerned authorities only after 5 years. The averments in para 4 .5.6.7 and 8 are not none. This opp.party has conducted the courses duly and diligently due to certain reasons the institution was closed down and all relevant records and pertaining to the courses and other records were handed over to the authorities for further action so that future of the students studying the institution which was run by this opp.party are none jeopardized. Since the 2nd opp.party has wound up and handed over the records to the authorities it is for the 1st opp.party to disburse the complainant. With original certificate. There has been no negligence and willful latches on the part of the 2nd opp.party. The complainant is entitled to get compensation hence opp.party prays dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> [I] Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties<br /> [ii]Whether the complainant is entitled top get compensation as prayed.<br /> [iii] Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> Point 1:<br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant is that though she passed the examination in the year 1997. She was not issued with NCVT certificate till the filing of complaint with the result that she lost her opportunity to severe a job and also suffered humiliation from her husband and family. As a matter of fact there is no dispute that the complaint was a student of opp.party 2 in Data Preparation and Computer Software and she passed the examination and was issued with a provisional certificate evidence by Ext.P3. in 1997. It has come in evidence that the final certificate was issued only after the filing of this complaint in the year 2004 and there is inordinate delay of about seven years in issuing the same.<br /> <br /> Now the question is as to whether there is any deficiency in service and if so whether the opp.parties are liable. The 2nd opp.party would contend that in the year 1997 that institution was deaffiliated by the Government and as per the direction they handed over the records to the Principal ITI Chakka and therefore they are not in any way liable for the delay. The contention of opp.party 2 that they were deaffiliated in 1997 is not at assailed either by opp.party 1 or by the complaint.<br /> <br /> According to the complainant she approached opp.party 2 on several occasion demanding final certificate but no material, worth believable was produced in this regard. Ext.P4 is a request made by the complainant to opp.party 1 on 24.7.2001. Ext.P5 is another request. Ext.P5 was received by opp.party 1 on 15.9.2001 evidenced by Ext.P6. Ext.P7 is a reminder issued by the complainant to opp.party 1 on 27.10.2001 which was received by opp.party 1 on 30.10.2001 evidenced by Ext.P8. Ext.P9 is another reminder for the issuance NCVT Certificate which was also received by opp.party 1 on 18.11.2001. Ext.P1 is another representation submitted by the complainant to opp.party on 1.11.2002 evidence by Ext.P12 postal acknowledgement card. Not even a scrap of paper was produced by opp.party 1 to show that any action has been taken on the request of the complainant referred to above or at least a reply was given to her . DW.1 admitted that opp.party 2 was de-affiliated in 1997 and direction issued to handed over the concerned records of opp.party 2 to the nearest ITI but he would not reminder the date of issuing such direction to opp.party 2. The definite contention of opp.party 2 is that only on receipt of a direction from opp.party 1 they can handover the records and non receipt of such a direction from opp.party 1 has resulted in delay . If such a direction was given to opp.party 1 by opp.party 1 one is at a loss to understand why such a letter was not produced. If a petty to note that even after the receipt of Ext.P4,P5, P7 and P9 no action has been taken by opp.party 1. No evidence is also forthcom9ing as to how they issued original certificate after filing of the complaint. These aspects would clearly indicate the deficiency in service on the part of opp.party.1<br /> <br /> There is force in contention of opp.party 2 that once they have been de-affiliated they cannot do anything in the issuance of final certificate. It is also worth pointing out that opp.party 2 was de -affiliated in 1997 subsequent to the issuance of Ext.P3. The documentary evidence Ext.P4, P5, P7 and P9 shown that the complainant approached opp.party 1 for the certificate in 2001 and by that time opp.party 2 has become de-affiliated. PW.1 admitted in cross exam at P5 that the requests made to R2 are only oral and the written request made opp.party 2 is only one and the copy of the same is not available which will lent support to the contention of opp.party 2 that the complainant never approach their for certificate. Even assuming that they approach opp.party 1 it can only be after the de-affiliation.<br /> <br /> Point 2:<br /> <br /> The complainant is claiming compensation under various heads but no material work believable was produced to substantiate Ext.P13 and 14 were produced establish that she lost opportunity for job due to none receipt of original NCVT certificate. But those documents were not properly proved on a perusal of the available material in this case. We can see that the complainant was perusing the original NCVT certificate from 2001 onwards and that she got say only after filing this complaint mental agony and suffering suffered by her during the period can be lost sight of. Here is a case wering The complainant was put to avoidable strain and tension for about the 4 years by the authorities concerned for which he is entitled to get of reasonable compensation from the opp.party. For of that the case has been discussed above we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the first opp.party. Point found accordingly.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is allowed directing the first opp.party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs,5,000 towards costs. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY<br /> <br /> ADV. RAVI SUSHA.<br /> <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> <br /> <br /> P1. series – Receipts<br /> P2. – Admission ticket<br /> P.3. – Provisional National Trade Certificate<br /> P4. –Letter sent by complainant to the The Director of Training<br /> P5. – Le. Sent by complainant to the Director of Trlain and Employment.<br /> P6. – Acknowledgement card.<br /> P7. – Letter sent by complainant to the Director of Training and Employment<br /> P8. – Acknowledgement card<br /> .P9. – Lr. sent by complainant to the Director of Training and Employment<br /> P10.- acknowledgement card.<br /> P11. –Letter<br /> P12. – Acknowledgement card.<br /> P13. –Letter sent by Principal, Holy mass Central School to the complainant<br /> P14 – Letter sent by Chandakala Compact Data Services to the complainant . <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />