Orissa

Rayagada

CC/351/2016

Sri Suryamani Pattajashi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Director, Presidency College, NIAS - Opp.Party(s)

Self

25 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 351 / 2016.                                           Date.     25    .     6  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  Gadadhara Sahu,                                            Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri Suryamani Pattajoshi,  S/O: Late Harihara Pattajoshi, C/O: Rayagada Municipality,    PO/ Dist: Rayagada  (Odisha).                                    …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Director, Presidency College, NIAS, College of Engineering & Technology ,Berhampur,Dist: Ganjam(Odisha).

2.The Director, JRN  Rajastan Vidyapeetha University, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan.                                                                                                                         .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self..

For the O.Ps   :- Set exparte.

JUDGEMENT

          The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for   non  published the final result  of the final  M.Tech(Civil) Engineering for which  the complainant  sought compensation  inter alia  for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

                On being noticed the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version though availing  of more than  10  adjournments. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayed to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around two years  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing from  the   complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps were  set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.      

        Heard from the complainant at length.

        We therefore proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit. We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

                                        FINDINGS.

        Undisputedly the complainant was joined as student in  the   O.Ps institution  towards distance education  M.Tech(Civil) Engineering course during the year November, 2007. The complainant  also received Admission card  from the  O.Ps bearing Enrollment No. DE/SA/03/9659 and Roll No. 19004832 which is in the file marked as Annexure-I. On perusal of the record this forum found the O.Ps had issued   M.Tech(Civil) Engineering course First, Second, third and forth Semester examination  memorandum of marks in favour of the complainant which is in the file marked as  Annexure-2 to 5). Further the complainant also  had paid Rs.13,200/- on Dt. 18.2.2008 and Rs. 13,200/- on Dt. 22.8.2008  towards  Semester level course, Examination and University development fees copies of the acknowledgement of draft receipt for remittance is in the file marked as Annexure-6). The complainant also made correspondence to the  O.Ps for issue of provisional certificates and final degree of M.Tech(Civil) Engineering certificate on Dt. 10.9.2012 and  on Dt. 16.9.2015 which are in the file marked as Annexure-7 & 8).

In  the absence  of any  denial  by  way  of  written  version  from the side  of the O.Ps. it is  presumed that the allegations  leveled against   the  O.Ps    deemed  to have  been  proved.    The  complainant   had  paid  the  amount towards fees of the above course  for the good service  as assured by the O.Ps   which  intended      with the O.Ps and the  said payment is  made for the consideration for the said service.  When the O.Ps    have failed to  give such service  for   which  the O.Ps  have   received   the  amount.   It is  deemed that the  O.Ps are   callous to the allegations  and it amounts  to deficiency  of service.

When   the  O.P No.2 had   issued  Admit card and  Memorandum of marks from First to Forth semester  towards M.Tech in Civil Engineering Examination  for a valuable   consideration and even  after   receipt  of the said consideration in advance,  non performance  of   the  same in spite  of  several  approaches from time to time    by the complainant which amounts to  deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps    and further  giving false  promise  with  an intention to  extract  money and  subsequently failed  in  giving  the  service  as  promised.

When contract  has   been  broken   or breached the complainant  who  suffers  from the said  breach is entitled   to receive  the full   amount which was paid by the complainant to the O.Ps. with  up-to-date  bank  interest from the O.Ps  who have broken  the  contract, Compensation  for any  loss or damage caused to him  thereby,  which  naturally arose in the usual course  of things  for  such breach  or which the party  knew when they have  made the  contract ought to considered.

Hence this forum found that the complainant is  a consumer within the definition of the C.P. Act, the breach of contract  even after receipt of the consideration in advance for the  same on the  part  of the O.Ps are deficiency  of  service and  as such  the complainant   is  entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petition in part.

We observed   the O.Ps   service is deteriorating and does not follow business ethics. This is undoubtedly  speaking  of the unfair trade practice resorted to by the O.Ps   with a view   to hoodwinking  gullible consumers.  That due to unfair trade practice,  delay, negligence and deficiency in service  by the O.Ps the complainant   sustained  financial loss  mental agony, damages  etc hence the O.Ps  are liable to pay compensation  under circumstances of the case.

The consumer protection act is a socio economic beneficial law, intended for speedy delivery of justice to the aggrieved consumers and every complaint is supposed to be disposed off within a timeframe in consonance with the objects of the benevolent legislature. But inordinate delay in procurement of evidences and counter by the parties have emerged for reaching delirium to achievement of such objects.

It is held and reported in CPR-1996(1) page No. 86 the  Hon’ble  National Commission where in observed in para -3  “ The Consumer Protection Act is an important social welfare  legislation  aiming to provide   for the better protection of the interests of Consumers.  Consumer legislation in India is in a evolutionary stage.  A positive  approach  is needed  interpreting the provisions of the Act to capture to a maximum extent  the spirit underlying the enactment to render  natural justice to consumers and also to make those rendering these services accountable.”

In the  present case  the O.Ps. are jointly and severally   liable.

Hence to meet  the  ends  of  justice,  the following   order is  passed.

                                                            ORDER.

            In resultant  the complaint petition stands  allowed in part  on exparte against  the O.Ps.       

The O.P. No.2  is ordered to  publish the result of  final M.Tech (Civil) Engineering inter alia issue original  pass university  certificates  of the Semesters  in favour of the complainant. There is no order as to costs.

The O.P. No.1 is ordered to refer the matter  to the O.P.No.2 for early compliance of the order..

            The O.Ps are  ordered to comply the above direction within 45 days from the date of  receipt of this order. 

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this      25 th.   Day  of   June,  2018.

 

Member                                   MEMBER.                                                        PRESIDENT.