ORDER

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS.  PRESIDENT

1.     This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party (herein referred to as OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the deficiency in service in not handing over original smart card of BSc of the complainant by OP and thereby deficiency in service, and for compensation of Rs.4,95,000/- along with interest 6.25% per annum on the said amount as compensation for harassment, mental agony and waste of time and also to direct OP pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings and also to issue marks card and for such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that;  the complainant completed BSc course in OP’s college. Even after completing the course, though OP has received the original marks card of 6^th Sem of BSc from Bangalore University, the same was not handed over to him.  He received a letter after enquiring from the college, on 25.08.2018 that the 6^th semester original marks card of the complainant has not been received by the college itself. Visited Bangalore University office on 30.08.2018. He came to know that the marks card was received by the college on 15.12.2017 itself. He made a complaint to National Consumer helpline and received an endorsement to file a complaint before proper consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act. There is deficiency in service on the part of OP in not handing over the original marks card and there by his professional, academic life, has been stuck. Hence the complaint.

3.     Upon service of notice, OP college appeared through its advocate and filed the version contending that complainant  has not disclosed the entire fact of the case and has suppressed material facts and trying to play fraud on this court to get a favourable order. The complainant is not entitle for any of the relief and also compensation of Rs.4,95,000/-. Further it is contended that complaint is not maintainable as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Anupama College Engineering Vs Gulshan Kumar and others. It was also followed by the National Consumer Commission and held that education institutions are not carrying any trade and business as service providers and hence complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

4.     It is contended by Op that the complainant got admission to the 2^nd year BSc course to its college and completed his studies. He studied 1^st BSc degree course at Government First Grade College, Yelahanka and  later got transfer to OP institution to continue his study for the 2^nd and 3^rd year BSc course. 

5.     The original marks card obtained from university in respect of the 6^th semester exam of the complainant was received and handed over to him.  There was a small mistake on the part of OP in not obtaining signature in respect issuing of the original markscard in the register maintained in that respect.  There was some confusion and in that respect, complainant approached OP in the year 2019 demanding for the original markscard  as there was no signature found in the register regarding handing over and receiving the marks card of the final semester marks card. Later, found on enquiry that the same was issued to him. 

6.     It is further contended that  the complainant applied for admission to REVA university for prosecuting in MSc course in physics and after completing the course, got job in BGS polytechnic, Chikkaballapura as a lecturer where he had submitted all his marks cards.  He was also given an endorsemet that he has received original markscard including 6^th semester marks card of BSc while leaving REVA university after completing MSc course.  Without obtaining and submitting the original documents, he could not have got admission to post graduation and could not have joined the job taking advantage of OP not obtaining signature regarding issuing of the original marks card, the complainant has filed this complaint in order to make a wrongful gain by misleading this commission. As a good will gesture OP offered to provide a duplicate marks card obtained from university and it is ready to hand over the same to the complainant.  That goodness cannot meant as OP accepting its negligence as contended by the complainant and hence prayed the Commission to dismiss the complaint.

7.     In order to prove the case complainant examined himself as PW-1. Heard the counsel for the complainant. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

8.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1 :   In the Negative.

POINT NO.2 :   Partly in the Affirmative

                                For the following.

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

9.     From the documents produced by respective parties it becomes clear that the complainant passed the examination of 6^th semester BSc from OP’s college. Ex P1 is the letter written by OP through the Registrar Valuation of Bangalore University stating that the college has not received the 6^th semester exam original marks card in respect of the complainant and requested the authority to send the same.  Ex P3 is the endorsement issued by the authorized official of OP college stating that the marks card in respect of the complainant in respect of 6^th semester has received by the college.  There is series correspondences, emails in respect of the same wherein complainant has been requesting and demanding OP to handover the original marks card.

10.   On the other hand, OP has produced copy of the application made by the complainant with the Bangalore University seeking for duplicate 6^th semester marks card by paying a sum of Rs.1,385/-.  Ex. P7 produced by the complainant states that OP has written a letter to university regarding non finding the original marks card of the complainant though as per the endorsement, it has received the original marks card. It is mentioned therein that inspite of efforts made out, could not find out the original markscard and probably which has been misplaced and hence the said original marks card is required for the student to pursue his higher studies and seeking excuse for the misplacing of the original marks card, sought for the issue of the marks card again.

11.   OP has produced resume of the complainant and also a letter written by him to the Principal BGS polytechnic Chickballapur dated wherein he has reported for duty and he has also given a endorsement stating that all the documents in original, the documents mentioned therein i.e. SSLC Marks card, MSc marks card up 4^th semester, MSc convocation, BSc 1 to 6^th semester marks card is received. It is contended that when this is taken into consideration, the complainant has received the original documents from the OP and has submitted while pursuing his higher studies i.e MSc and afterwards to BGS polytechnic Chikkaballapura at the time securing the job and has taken it back.  When that being the case, the possibility of  OP not obtaining the signature of the complainant in the marks card issuing register has been misused by the complainant, cannot be ruled out.  Under the circumstances we are not convinced regarding deficiency in service in respect of issuing of the marks card by the OP. 

12.   On perusing the version OP, has made it clear that it is ready to issue a duplicate marks card and the same can be utilized by the complainant.  When that being the case, the OP wanted to help the complainant in providing a duplicate marks card.  Hence we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE NEGATIVE.

POINT NO.2:-

13.   In view of OP coming forward to provide a duplicate marks card of 6^th semester exam, we direct OP to issue the duplicate marks card with an endorsement that it is not a duplicate marks card but it is an original marks card to set the matter right. 

14.   The complainant has claimed Rs.4,95,000/- as compensation from O P for his mental sufferance and strain. The same has not been substantiated with sufficient as supporting evidence. It is to be borne in mind that the grant of compensation cannot be exorbitant, whimsical and fancy.  The cardinal principal of granting compensation is it should be just, proper and proportionate to the damage suffered. 

15.   In this case, we see no sufferance of damage by the complainant as according to him only, he pursued his higher studies i.e. study of MSc in REVA University on the available academic documents and also he got a job afterwards by submitting whatever the documents including the marks card of the 6^th semester. Hence absolutely if he has not suffered either financially or physically.  Hence he is not entitle for the damages claimed in the complaint whereas due to the misplacement or otherwise of the OP in respect of the marks card of the complainant, he was made to suffer mentally to some extent. Hence we direct OP to pay Rs.5,000/- for mental sufferance and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation expenses. Hence we answer POINT NO.2 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE and pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint is partly allowed. Prays for damages is partly allowed and OP directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as damages towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. OP is directed to provide the complainant a duplicate marks card with an endorsement on it that it is given substituting the original and it is not a duplicate one if complainant desire to have it.   
3.  OP is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this Commission within 15 days thereafter.
4. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this day the 30^th day of June 2021)

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the letter by the principal to the registrar of Bangalore University.

Ex P2: Copy of the Result Sheet

Ex. P3: Acknowledgement

Ex P4: Copy of the grievance details by Ministry of Human Resource Development

Ex P5;  Copy of the representation to university.

Ex P6: Copy of the email correspondences.

Ex P7: Copy of the apology letter dt:20.05.2020

Ex P8: Copy of the provisional Tabulation sheet

Ex P9: Copy of the affidavit

Ex P10: Copy of the police complaint

Ex P11: Copy of the register

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Sri B Thajumull Pash, Principal of OP.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Copy of the Resume of the complainant

Ex R2: Copy of the  Personnel profile.

Ex R3: Copy of the letter by complainant to Principal BGS Polytechnic, Chikkaballapur

Ex R4: Copy of the Office order.

Ex R5: Copy of the another letter by complainant to Principal BGS Polytechnic, Chikkaballapur.

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

*RAK