BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 31st day of December, 2008
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.147/2008 Between Complainant : Alby D/o Sebastian, Thandel House, Nayarupara P.O, Idukki District. (By Advs: P.A.Suhas & Lissy M.M) And Opposite Parties : 1. The Headmaster, St.George H.S.S, Vazhathoppu, Idukki District. (By Adv: K.J.Thomas) 2. The Manager, St.George H.S.S, Vazhathoppu, Idukki District. (By Adv: K.J.Thomas) 3. The Secretary to the Commissioner for Govt.Examinations, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram. O R D E R SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The complainant applied for writing SSLC Supplementary examination at the Ist opposite party's school in the month of March 2007 and hall ticket was received from the Ist opposite party. The examination was written at the 2nd opposite party's school. The registration number was mistakenly written as 605528 by the Ist and 2nd opposite parties. The original registration number was 609528. It was caused because of the negligence in the part of the Ist and 2nd opposite parties. The result of the examination were published in May 2007. The result of the complainant was not published because of the error in the registration number in the hall ticket. The complainant has written the Supplementary examination only for the subject Mathematics. The Ist and 2nd opposite party never contacted the 3rd opposite party for getting the corrected registration number and also for publishing the result of the complainant. The complainant approached the Ist and 2nd opposite party several times, but they told that, it is not the duty of the Ist and 2nd opposite parties. The complainant was denying the study for 1 year because of the non-publication of the result. So the petition is filed for getting compensation for the negligence caused from the part of Ist and 2nd opposite parties.
2. As per the written version filed by the Ist and 2nd opposite parties, they have never received any consideration or fee from the complainant. The complainant paid fee for the examination conducted in March 2007 in the name of the 3rd opposite party. So the Ist and 2nd opposite parties are not responsible for the same. The Ist and 2nd opposite parties contacted the 3rd opposite party about the delay caused to the publication of result of the complainant by telephone and also by letter. The complainant also personally contacted the 3rd opposite party about the matter. It is the duty of the 3rd opposite party to correct the mistake happened to the hall ticket and not the Ist and 2nd opposite parties. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ist and 2nd opposite parties. It is the statutory duty of the Government to conduct the examination and it will not come under the Consumer Protection Act.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence adduced from the part of the opposite parties.
5. The POINT :- The complaint is filed against the opposite parties for negligence caused by the opposite parties in publishing the result of the complainant's SAY examination. The complainant was examined as PW1. Copy of the hall ticket was marked as Ext.P1. As per the cross examination of the learned counsel for the opposite party, PW1 deposed that she has passed the examination with D plus grade, D plus grade means pass mark. She has appeared for regular examination in March 2005. But she failed in Mathematics Paper I. But she never applied in the September supplementary examination 2005. Again she has written the SAY examination in 2006. But again she failed only for Mathematics paper I. But she did not apply for examination in 2006 March and 2006 September . The complainant has no grievance for the lapses of the chances. There was a mistake in the hall ticket issued by the opposite party and it is admitted by them. If the complainant was eagerly waiting for the result of the examination, she would not have lost more than 3 chances. But she failed to appear for the examination. The Ist and 2nd opposite parties tried to contact the 3rd opposite party for getting the result of the complainant and it is not seen that the deliberate act of the opposite parties made the delay for the publication of the result of the complainant. Moreover, the Government is conducting examination and as per 2008 CTJ 491(P) NCDRC – Surya Prakash Mahapatra Vs. Controller of Examinations, Sambalpur University & Others, the Hon'ble National Commission decided that the statutory duty of conducting the examination by the Government will not come into the definition of Consumer Protection Act and so the petition is dismissed. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of December, 2008 Sd/-
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) Sd/- SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER) Sd/-
SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
APPENDIX Depositions : On the side of Complainant : PW1 - Alby Sebastian
On the side of Opposite Parties : Nil Exhibits: On the side of Complainant: Ext.P1 - Photocopy of Admission Ticket(Reg.No.605528) issued by the opposite party
On the side of Opposite Parties : Nil | 
