Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/141/2012

Jameel Basha - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Director of Schol Education, - Opp.Party(s)

M.J.Jaseem Mohammed

13 Jul 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   06.06.2012

                                                                        Date of Order :   13.07.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.141/2012

THURSDAY THIS  13^TH  DAY OF JULY 2017

 

I. Jameel Basha,

No.8, North Beach Road,

3^rd Floor, Platinum Printers

Building, Clive Battery,

Chennai 600 001.                                               .. Complainant

                                        ..Vs..

 

1.  The Director of School Education,

DPI Complex,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai 600 006.

 

2. The Management of MW A Matriculation

Higher Secy. School,

No.5, Conran Smith Road,

Gopalapuram,

Royapettah, Chennai – 86.                                .. opposite parties.

 

Counsel for Complainant        :    M/s. M.J. Jaseem Mohammed & another   

For opposite party-1              :    Exparte.

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party :   M/s. S.D.S.Phillip & other   

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum Rs.5,00,000 and also to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,00,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of future earnings and Rs.4,00,000/- towards medical  expenses  with cost of the complaint.

 

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that the complainant’s daughter Selvi. Hidhaya Manal  was studying in the 2^nd opposite party institution in the beginning of 2006, while so the complainant’s daughter Selvi Hidhaya Manal who completed her 12^th standard in 2^nd opposite party school and appeared for the public examination held in March 2012, and in the results published through internet on 22.5.2012 the mark sheet of Selvi Hidhaya Manal shows “5” for Chemistry subject instead of 50.    Accordingly the complainant informed the said matter to the 2^nd opposite party.     Thereafter the 2^nd opposite party sent letter to the 1^st opposite party on 23.5.2012.    The complainant further state that he pinned high hopes on the opposite parties who promised to carry out the necessary amendments before the issuance of the hard copy of the original mark sheet.   But the said promise was observed more in breach than in compliance as evident from the mark sheet dated  22.5.2012 which was issued on 13.6.2012.  As such the act of the opposite parties clearly amounts gross deficiency in service and thereby caused harassment, mental agony  and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2.  Inspite of service of notice, the 1^st opposite party is called absent and set exparte.

3. The brief averments in the Written Version of  the 2^nd opposite party  are as follows:

        The 2^nd opposite party state that  the opposite party denies all the allegations made in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein and puts the complainant to strict proof thereof.   The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.    The 2^nd opposite party state that J.Hidhaya Manal, the daughter of the complainant appeared for  12^th public examination in March2012 as a student of the opposite party school.   After the results were published on 22.5.2012 it was brought to the notice of the opposite party on the very same date by the complainant’s daughter; after seeing the internet that the Chemistry Practical marks have been misprint as “0” instead of “50” as she had scored 50 marks as internal marks in the said Chemistry practical as per the records of the opposite party.    On the same day  they have forwarded a letter dated 22.5.2012 to the 1^st opposite party; the said error and requesting for making the changes at the earlier.    The complainant’s daughter received the original uncorrected mark sheet on 30.5.2012 from the 2^nd opposite party with the promise to return it when it is required.   The 2^nd opposite party state that this opposite party followed up the matter with the 1^st opposite party for rectifying the mark statement but as the 1^st opposite party was held up in their administrative work relating to revaluation etc. they issued the corrected mark statement only on 13.6.2012.    Hence the allegation made by the complainant against the 2^nd opposite party as though there was any negligence or deficiency in service on their part is not at all sustainable    and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant had filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 marked.  Proof affidavit of 2^nd opposite party  filed and Ex.B1 marked on the side of the 2^nd opposite party and also oral arguments let in.

5.   The point for the consideration is:  

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,00,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of future earnings and Rs.4,00,000/- towards medical  expenses  with cost of the complaint as prayed for ?

 

6.      ON POINT :-

          Heard both sides.  Perused the records.  Admittedly the complainant is the father of Selvi Hidhaya Manal who was the student in the 2^nd opposite party school.   It is also admitted that Selvi Hidhaya Manal was a bright student and never failed till 12^th Standard.   Selvi Hidhaya Manal appeared for 12^th standard public examination held in March 2012, the results were published through internet on 22.5.2012; the mark sheet of Selvi Hidhaya Manal shows “5” for Chemistry subject internal instead of 50 which caused great mental agony.   Immediately the complainant informed the matter to the 2^nd opposite party who sent Ex.B1 letter  to the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party after perusal of the records issued fresh corrected mark sheet on  13.6.2012.  The learned counsel for the complainant contended that immediately after the announcement of results  in the internet on 22.5.2012 even after submitting due letters for correcting the internel mark of Chemistry Subject the opposite parties 1 & 2 has not taken any positive steps and issued mark sheet showing “5” marks internal on 30.5.2012 as per Ex.A8 which caused great mental agony to the complainant and his daughter Selvi Hidhaya Manal. 

7.     The learned counsel for the complainant further contended that due to such issuance of wrong mark sheet the complainant’s daughter Selvi Hidhaya Manal was not able to apply the best prospective higher education in the right time.   But on a careful perusal of the records there is no iota of evidence produced before this forum much less the delay of 21 days alone caused for issuing the corrected mark sheet.    Further the learned counsel for the complainant contended that due to illness the  complainant ‘s daughter  Selvi Hidhaya Manal was undergone treatment but there was no record before this forum.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant contended that due the deficiency of service committed by the opposite parties the complainant’s daughter Selvi Hidhaya Manal sustained great mental agony and other pecuniary loss.  The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.5,00,000/- towards deficiency of service, Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of future earning and Rs.4,00,000/- towards medical expenditure.  But the complainant has not adduced  substantially  evidence to prove such huge claim.   The learned counsel for the 2^nd opposite party would contend that admittedly the student Selvi Hidhaya Manal was studied in their institution and she is a bright student; she has scored “50” marks in Chemistry internal examination.  The 1^st opposite party is the authorized person to issue mark sheet after due verification of answer paper.    In this case before the annual board examinations, practical examination will be conducted in the respective school and the list of mark sheet will be submitted to the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party immediately after the valuation of theory paper, declared the result with mark sheet.  While declaring the result and issuing the mark sheet; the mark scored by complainant’s daughter is wrongly printed as “5” instead of “50” by the computer.   Immediately after notice of the such  wrong entry  the 2^nd opposite party sent a letter Ex.B1 for taking  suitable steps by the 1^st opposite party.   The 1^st opposite party after 21 days issued corrected mark sheet; in the mean time the 1^st opposite party issued the wrong mark sheet might have caused mental agony.  The allegation that future prospectus has been diminished and scope has been lost and compelled to take medical treatment are baseless because after the receipt of the mark sheet reasonable time available for applying higher education of  all kinds.  The claim of the complainant towards mental agony and other grounds are baseless.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the complainant is entitled a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-.  Regarding other reliefs also the complaint is dismissed and the point is answered accordingly.    

           In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant and regarding other reliefs the complaint is dismissed.

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to  till the date of payment.

  Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  13^th  day  of  July 2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants” side documents:

Ex.A1-  22.5.2012 - Copy of mark Sheet download from the internet.

Ex.A2- 22.5.2012  - Copy of letter from 2^nd opposite party to the 1^st opposite
                               party.

Ex.A3- 23.5.2012  -  Copy of letter from complainant’s daughter to the

                               Additional Secretary of Hr. Sec. Examination.

 

Ex.A4- 23.5.2012  -  Copy of letter from the complainant to the Hon’ble

                               Minister for education.

 

Ex.A5- 23.5.2012  -  Copy of letter from the complainant to the

                               1^st opposite party.

 

Ex.A6- 23.5.2012  - Copy of letter from the complainant to the Secretary of

                               Education.

Ex.A7- 25.5.2012  - Copy of Speed post receipt.

Ex.A8- 30.5.2012  - Copy of Higher Secondary course- Certificate.

Ex.A9-         -       - Copy of Certificates of the complainant’s daughter.                             

Opposite parties’ side document: -   

 

Ex.B1- 22.5.2012  - Copy of letter sent by the 1^st opposite party to the

                                2^nd opposite party.

 

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.