The Registrar-Evaluation, V/S Sangeetha.S - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/2863

Sangeetha.S - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Registrar-Evaluation, - Opp.Party(s)

C.V.Annaiah

16 Mar 2009

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/2863

Sangeetha.S						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Registrar-Evaluation, The Principal, Dayananda Sagar College of Management & Information Technology						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 31.12.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 16th MARCH 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2863/2008 COMPLAINANT Sangeetha. S, D/o. P. Selvaraj, Aged about 27 years, Residing at No. 18, Raja Nilayam, 11th Main, Muthyalnagar, Bangalore 560 054. Advocate (C.V. Annaiah) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Registrar Evaluation, Bangalore University, Bangalore. Advocate (N.K. Ramesh) 2. The Principal, Dayananda Sagar College of Management & Information Technology, Shavige Malleswara Hills, Kumaraswamy Layout, Bangalore 560 078. O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to announce the result of post graduate challenge valuation examination held during March 2003 of Ist Semester M.B.A and pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant was a student of second OP studying in first semester M.B.A. She has appeared for the said examination under the old scheme and paid the required fees. After the announcement of the result complainant applied for evaluation of the subject by paying necessary fees. With all that OP failed and neglected to announce the evaluation result inspite of repeated requests and demands made by the complainant. For no fault of her, she was forced to discontinue her education. It is all because of the non-declaring of the result of the first semester M.B.A with respect to the said accounting. Hence she suffered both mental agony and financial loss. She even caused the notice to the OP, there was no response. Thus she felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On admission and registration of the complaint notices were sent to the OPs. Though OP.2 served with a notice remained absent. The absence of the OP.2 does not appears to be as bonafide and reasonable, hence OP.2 is placed ex-parte. OP.1 appeared and filed the version mainly contending that the complaint is barred by time. The regulation No.8.5 of Bangalore University Regulation for Post Graduate Semester Course clearly indicates that within 10 days the candidate can challenge the evaluation and prescribed fee is Rs.1,010/-, application should be sent through the concerned Principal of the Institution where the candidate last studied. The belated applications received after completion of last date will not be accepted. According to OP.1 no such application of the complainant is forwarded by OP.2 to them. So the allegations made against them by the complainant are baseless. When complainant approached OP.1 they did intimate her about the non-receipt of the application. If there is any fault it lies only with OP.2 not by OP.1. The allegation of the complainant that she discontinued her studies is false, actually she completed her course with respect to 2nd and 4th semesters also. The candidate like complainant was permitted to appear under the old scheme to complete their remaining papers and it was extended up to January 2009. If complainant has not availed the said facilities, for that OP cannot be blamed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.1. Among these grounds, OP.1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP.1 has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP.2 did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative in part Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. It is the case of the complainant that after the result of the Ist Semester of M.B.A course for which she appeared through OP.2, she sought for evaluation of the subject Accounting for Management under old scheme as she was not satisfied with the marks allotted to her. In that regard she paid Rs.1,000/- the necessary fees for reevaluation and submitted an application on 11.07.2003, thereafter inspite of her repeated requests and demands and personal approach OP failed and neglected to announce the evaluation result. The non-announcement of the challenge evaluation results dated 26.03.2004 has affected her future career. Though she caused the legal notice, there was no response again. Under such circumstances she is forced to discontinue her education, hence suffered both mental agony and financial loss and felt the deficiency in service on part of the OP. 7. As against this it is contended by the OP.1 that the complaint is barred by time. Though the said result was announced in the year 2003 and the challenge evaluation result in the year 2004, no such immediate steps were taken to file the complaint. What made her to wait for 4 years in filing this complaint is not known. We find there is a substance in the defence raised by OP.1. It is further contended by OP.1 that a candidate has to apply for challenge valuation within 10 days from the date of announcement of the result and pay a required fee of Rs.1,010/-, the application should be sent through the concerned Principal where the candidate studied and the belated application received will not be accepted. To substantiate the said defence the copy of the Regulation No. 8.5 governing Regulation for Post Graduate Semester Courses is produced. 8. Complainant has not disputed the authenticity of the said Regulations. The other documents produced by the complainant go to show that she has applied through her Principal. Unfortunately OP.2 has not appeared before the Forum and supported the contention of the complainant. On the other hand it is specifically contended by OP.1 that they have not at all received any application for challenge evaluation pertaining to complainant forwarded by OP.2. So in order to fix up OP.1 with a deficiency in service there should be strict proof that OP.2 forwarded the said application to OP.1 for needful well within a reasonable time accompanied with necessary fees and that OP.1 acknowledged the same. As could be seen from the documents produced no such acknowledgement or receipt is produced so as to show that the said application is received by OP.1. Under such circumstances OP.1 is not obliged to declare the said result. Again we find the substance in the defence set out by OP.1. 9. It is further stated by OP.1 that complainant completed her 2nd and 4th semesters in a subsequent year except the subject Accounting for Management, which was challenged by her under reevaluation. It is further stated by OP.1 the students of the old scheme are permitted to complete their remaining papers up to January 2009. It appears complainant has not availed the said opportunity, for that OP.1 cannot be blamed. 10. Having considered all these facts and circumstances, we find there is some kind of negligence on the part of OP.2. If OP.2 would have forwarded the said application for challenge evaluation well in time, probably OP.1 would have acted in accordance with rules and regulations immediately. Due to the carelessness of OP.2 complainant must have suffered some kind of inconvenience, mental agony and financial loss. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service against OP.2 and not against OP.1. 11. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the justice will be met by directing the OP.2 to pay a token compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP.2 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. The complaint against OP.1 is dismissed. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 16th day of March 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 31.12.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 16th MARCH 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2863/2008 COMPLAINANT Sangeetha. S, D/o. P. Selvaraj, Aged about 27 years, Residing at No. 18, Raja Nilayam, 11th Main, Muthyalnagar, Bangalore 560 054. Advocate (C.V. Annaiah) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Registrar Evaluation, Bangalore University, Bangalore. Advocate (N.K. Ramesh) 2. The Principal, Dayananda Sagar College of Management & Information Technology, Shavige Malleswara Hills, Kumaraswamy Layout, Bangalore 560 078. O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to announce the result of post graduate challenge valuation examination held during March 2003 of Ist Semester M.B.A and pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant was a student of second OP studying in first semester M.B.A. She has appeared for the said examination under the old scheme and paid the required fees. After the announcement of the result complainant applied for evaluation of the subject by paying necessary fees. With all that OP failed and neglected to announce the evaluation result inspite of repeated requests and demands made by the complainant. For no fault of her, she was forced to discontinue her education. It is all because of the non-declaring of the result of the first semester M.B.A with respect to the said accounting. Hence she suffered both mental agony and financial loss. She even caused the notice to the OP, there was no response. Thus she felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On admission and registration of the complaint notices were sent to the OPs. Though OP.2 served with a notice remained absent. The absence of the OP.2 does not appears to be as bonafide and reasonable, hence OP.2 is placed ex-parte. OP.1 appeared and filed the version mainly contending that the complaint is barred by time. The regulation No.8.5 of Bangalore University Regulation for Post Graduate Semester Course clearly indicates that within 10 days the candidate can challenge the evaluation and prescribed fee is Rs.1,010/-, application should be sent through the concerned Principal of the Institution where the candidate last studied. The belated applications received after completion of last date will not be accepted. According to OP.1 no such application of the complainant is forwarded by OP.2 to them. So the allegations made against them by the complainant are baseless. When complainant approached OP.1 they did intimate her about the non-receipt of the application. If there is any fault it lies only with OP.2 not by OP.1. The allegation of the complainant that she discontinued her studies is false, actually she completed her course with respect to 2nd and 4th semesters also. The candidate like complainant was permitted to appear under the old scheme to complete their remaining papers and it was extended up to January 2009. If complainant has not availed the said facilities, for that OP cannot be blamed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.1. Among these grounds, OP.1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP.1 has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP.2 did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative in part Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. It is the case of the complainant that after the result of the Ist Semester of M.B.A course for which she appeared through OP.2, she sought for evaluation of the subject Accounting for Management under old scheme as she was not satisfied with the marks allotted to her. In that regard she paid Rs.1,000/- the necessary fees for reevaluation and submitted an application on 11.07.2003, thereafter inspite of her repeated requests and demands and personal approach OP failed and neglected to announce the evaluation result. The non-announcement of the challenge evaluation results dated 26.03.2004 has affected her future career. Though she caused the legal notice, there was no response again. Under such circumstances she is forced to discontinue her education, hence suffered both mental agony and financial loss and felt the deficiency in service on part of the OP. 7. As against this it is contended by the OP.1 that the complaint is barred by time. Though the said result was announced in the year 2003 and the challenge evaluation result in the year 2004, no such immediate steps were taken to file the complaint. What made her to wait for 4 years in filing this complaint is not known. We find there is a substance in the defence raised by OP.1. It is further contended by OP.1 that a candidate has to apply for challenge valuation within 10 days from the date of announcement of the result and pay a required fee of Rs.1,010/-, the application should be sent through the concerned Principal where the candidate studied and the belated application received will not be accepted. To substantiate the said defence the copy of the Regulation No. 8.5 governing Regulation for Post Graduate Semester Courses is produced. 8. Complainant has not disputed the authenticity of the said Regulations. The other documents produced by the complainant go to show that she has applied through her Principal. Unfortunately OP.2 has not appeared before the Forum and supported the contention of the complainant. On the other hand it is specifically contended by OP.1 that they have not at all received any application for challenge evaluation pertaining to complainant forwarded by OP.2. So in order to fix up OP.1 with a deficiency in service there should be strict proof that OP.2 forwarded the said application to OP.1 for needful well within a reasonable time accompanied with necessary fees and that OP.1 acknowledged the same. As could be seen from the documents produced no such acknowledgement or receipt is produced so as to show that the said application is received by OP.1. Under such circumstances OP.1 is not obliged to declare the said result. Again we find the substance in the defence set out by OP.1. 9. It is further stated by OP.1 that complainant completed her 2nd and 4th semesters in a subsequent year except the subject Accounting for Management, which was challenged by her under reevaluation. It is further stated by OP.1 the students of the old scheme are permitted to complete their remaining papers up to January 2009. It appears complainant has not availed the said opportunity, for that OP.1 cannot be blamed. 10. Having considered all these facts and circumstances, we find there is some kind of negligence on the part of OP.2. If OP.2 would have forwarded the said application for challenge evaluation well in time, probably OP.1 would have acted in accordance with rules and regulations immediately. Due to the carelessness of OP.2 complainant must have suffered some kind of inconvenience, mental agony and financial loss. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service against OP.2 and not against OP.1. 11. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the justice will be met by directing the OP.2 to pay a token compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP.2 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. The complaint against OP.1 is dismissed. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 16th day of March 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.