Orissa

Rayagada

CC/145/2021

Miss Asmita Jena - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Principal Maheswari College of Education - Opp.Party(s)

Self

10 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

 

C.C.CASE  NO.__145_______/2021                                    Date.      10  .12.  2021.

 

P R E S E N T .

 

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

Miss Asmita Jena,  D/O: Sanatanu Jena,  R.K.Nagar,  Po/Dist:Rayagada.

(Odisha) 765   001.                                                                        ….  Complainant.

Versus.

 

1.The Principal ,   Maheswari  College,

Regd,  office Village-Kalavarai, Bobbili- 535558, Dist: Vizianagaram, State:Andhrapradesh.

2.The Dean, Andhra  University Entrance  RD.Andhra University South Campus,   Visakhapatnam,  State:Andhrapradesh, 530003

3.Mr. Vinod Kumar, Near Over bridge, Bobbili- 535558, Dist: Vizianagaram, State: Andhapradesh                                            …Opposite  Parties.

 

 

For the Complainant:- Sri  P.N.Dash and associates.

For the  O.P No. 1:- Sri  Y.Madhu  Sudhan  Rao , Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P. 2 & 3 :- Set exparte.

 

JUDGEMENT

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non receipt of receipt of B.Ed certificate  from the  O.Ps  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. 

Upon  Notice, the O.P  No.1   put in their appearance  through their learned counsel  and filed  written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps    taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act,  The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P.   Hence the O.Ps prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Upon  Notice, the  O.Ps 2 & 3   neither entering in to appear before the District commission  nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  03 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps .  Observing lapses of around  3 months    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.P. The action of the O.P   is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in the C.P. Act. Hence the O.P.    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 the case and  arguments from the learned counsels for the    O.P  No.1    and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This commission   examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                    FINDINGS.

Undisputedly the  complainant   was a student of  Maheswari College of Education, Bobbili for the academic Year- 2018-2020 for B.Ed  batch.  The Registration No. of the complainant in the college was 218141702007.

The main grievance of the complainant is that  till date she has not received the  B.Ed certificate  from the O.Ps. Hence this C.C. case filed before this Commission   to get the B.Ed  certificate.

The O.P. No.1  in their written version  admitted that the  complainant   was a student of  Maheswari College of Education, Bobbili for the academic Year- 2018-2020 for B.Ed  batch.  The Registration No. of the complainant in the college was 218141702007.

The O.P. No. 1  in their written version  contended the  case is not maintainable  before the commission.

For this the Commission relied the citations of  the  apex court  which are mentioned  here under.

Prior  to delve in to the merit  of the case on outset  we have to  consider whether the complainant is a consumer under C.P. Act?  While answering  the issue  we would like to refer the citation.  It is held and reported  in CPR-2011(2) page No. 94 (National Commission) and reported  in  OLR(CSR) 2005(1) State commission,Cuttack  page  No. 71  where in the commissions  observed  “that Educational institution  imparting  of education  for consideration  falls within the  ambit of service as defined in the Act.  A student who takes admission in the educational institution   hires  the service of the educational institution for consideration,  he is a consumer as defined under the Act.

It is held and reported in Current Consumer Case 2004 page No.27 where in  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court  observed  the redressal mechanism  established  under the Act is “not supposed to supplant but to supplement the existing judicial system”. It is well settled  principle of law that the statutory authority   should act under the provisions of the relevant statue and if they do  not   act accordingly, the Consumer Forum  have the jurisdiction because  not acting under the provisions of the statute/Act it amounts to deficiency   of service.

By virtue of Article-300, if a competent legislation  enacts a law for compensation  or damage  for  an act done by it  or its officers in discharge of their statutory  duties.  Thus  a suit for it  would be maintainable.  No civilized  system  can prorate    on executives  to play  with people  of  its country  and claim that it is entitled to act  in any manner   as it  is sovereign needs  of the state, duty of  officials  and right  of the citizens are to be reconciled.  So that  the role of law   in a welfare state  is not shaken  (N.Nagendra Rao & Co.  Vrs. State of Andhra Pradesh ( 1994) 6 SCC-205 /AIR 1994 SC  2663.     

Basing on the above  citation this commission has  jurisdiction to entertain the  present case.

Admittedly, in the case at hand,  the complainant has  availed  service on payment of consideration in shape of fees  which was received by the O.Ps  for  issue of  original Board, Provisional certificates  in favour of the complainant.

Further  the  O.P No.1 in their written version  contended the  this District   commission  has no   Territorial  jurisdiction to entertain the present case.

In this connection this commission  relied the C.P. Act, 2019  Section  34(2)  (d).

As per Sec. 34(2) of the Consumer Protection Act,2019  “ A complaint shall be instituted in a District    Commission  within the local limits of whose jurisdiction”,-

1.             The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are    more than             one, at the time of the institution of the complaint,            actually         and             voluntarily    resides or carries on business or has a             branch           office or             personally works for gain            ,or
2.             Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the       time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides            or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works          for      gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the             District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside or      carry on business or have a branch office      or personally    work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in  such institution; or

 

©              The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises”.

 

d)          The complainant resides or personally works for gain.

 

          In  the Section 34(2) (d)  of the C.P. Act, 2019  clearly mentioned that  “The Complainant resides or personally works for gain”.

          In the present case the complainant has  a right to file the present case in this District Commission as  the complainant  resides in the  Rayagada town (Odisha) for  personally works  for gain.

The plea raised by the O.Ps in their written version   stands rejected.

 

On perusal of the  correspondences made  with the O.Ps  it is clearly noticed   that there is  a deficiency of service by the statutory authorities  in regard to issuance of certificates and when the application for issue of Original, Provisional  certificates the   O.Ps ought to have made an enquiry about the same, rather the O.P No.2(University)  is silent in the matter.

After receiving  voluminous letters from the complainant   now both the O.Ps  are playing  mischief  in the matter  causing mental agony to the complainant  since she is unable to seek any employment without the original certificates.  Further the O.Ps are  playing   with  the career of the complainant.  We  observed the deficiency and negligence exhibited by  both the O.Ps  are so grave that such  negligence has effected   the life and avocation of a student and as such their action is deemed to have been  a breach of  the fundamental right as provided under Article- 14  of the constitution.  It is  submitted that the matter of negligence  or omission by a statutory  is to be complied soon  so that  it will not infringe the fundamental right guaranteed under the    constitution and they have a right to rectify the same and to provide such service   to the student who appeared the said examination  in the year 2018-2020

Again  It is held and reported  in  C.P.R- 2010(2) page No.426  where in  the Hon’ble  State   Commission, Andhra  Pradesh  observed  “Where complainant joined M.Sc  course  and appeared in  examination  conducted   by  the  University, the latter would  be obliged  to issue original  certificate  to the complainant.”

Further  it is held and reported  in C.P.R. 2006(2) page No. 314 the Hon’ble  State Commission, Chhatisgarh  where in observed “ Education-Delay  in issuance  of certificates-University  is responsible for non fulfilment of their obligations to furnish certificates to the complainant”.  In the present case  non  issuance of certificates  by the O.Ps forced the complainant   to sit idle and preventing  him from being an employee and lost opportunity  to  get any job  or employment  due to the callousness  and negligence of the O.Ps. Hence, she faced monetary loss on account of unemployment.

 

In our view  the action of the O.Ps  prior to duty bound  should  have corrigendum  its  crocodile  process  to settle  the dispute of the student  and consequently  should take  war footing   steps  to settle the  matter by issuing the original B.Ed certificate  and Provisional  certificates  in favour of the complainant.

In the present case the O.Ps have not come with  clean hands and their submission before this commission  is found to be avoid the legitimate right as claimed by the  complainant as such the plea of the O.Ps can not be  accepted.  Since the complainant is hopefull of getting  original certificate in the door steps and denial of such legitimate right  is a deficiency of service putting the complainant in to financial trouble and to drag him in to legal complications.  Hence in order to avoid the same and to save the complainant from the present plight the O.Ps are advised  to issue original certificates in favour of the complainant in the spirit of legislation intent.. Further  for failure to act properly by the O.Ps  the complainant should not be  deprived of their  legitmate entitlement.  It is   ensured  that the  benefits to which the complainant is eligible and entitled to enjoy  it and it should not became   a distant dream  so as to have peaceful  living.

Further we observed the O.Ps are not rendering proper service to the complainant establishes their callousness and whimsical attitude. The  District commission feel that the O.Ps services are deteriorating and does not follows   ethics.  Due to the same attitude  the complainant deprived of  to get the job in these hard days.

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliane Juris. Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

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

                                                                             

ORDER.

In Resultant the complaint petition is allowed on contest  against the O.Ps.

The  O.P No.2 (University)  is  ordered to issue B.Ed Certificate and  Mark sheets bearing  Registration  No. 218141702007  in favour of the complainant immediately.  Parties are left to bear their  own cost.

 The O.P No. 2 (University)  is   ordered to comply the above directions within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is entitled  Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand)only  from the  O.P. No.2(University) towards mental agony.

The  O.P. 1 & 3 are directed to refer the matter to the O.P. No.2(University) for early compliance of the above order.

Copies be served on the O.Ps  as per rule.

Dictated  and corrected by me

Pronounced on this         10^th.day     of      December,       2021.

                            

Member.                                          President