BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Monday the 27TH day of March, 2006
C.D.No.83/2005
Mohammad Erphan Shaik, S/o Shaik Abdul Samad,
Aged 17 years, minor rep. by father,
Shaik Abdul Samad, Aged 46 years,
S/o Abdul Ahukur,
Muslim, Telecom Technical Assistant, BANL, C-Dot Exchange, Nandyal, Kurnool District. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1.The Secretary, Board of Intermediate,
Education, Hyderabad.
2.The Correspondent B.V.R Co-operative
Junior College, Gadivemula, Kurnool District. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri D.M.Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate, Nandyal for complainant and Sri P.V.Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool opposite party No.1 and Sri.S.Chand Basha, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No. 2, and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt.C.Preethi, Hon’ble Member)
1. This Consumer Dispute of the complainant is filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for loss of academic year, Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.10,000/- towards expenses incurred for going to Hyderabad from Nandyal three times, Rs.50,000/- for the expenditure incurred by the complainant to impart education during the year 2002-2004 and Rs.5,000/- as cost of this complaint.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is a student of Intermediate course in Multi Purpose Health Worker (MPHW (M)) and passed first year in 2003 at B.V.R Cooperative Junior College, Gadivemula. The complainant in the year June 2004 appeared for second year vocational course with hall ticket bearing No.524764 with centre code No.2461 at G.A.C, Midthur in Kurnool District. To utter surprise of the complainant his results declared by opposite party No.1 under caption withheld. The complainant addressed two letters dated 22-9-2004 and 24-11-2004 to opposite parties 1 and 2 but there is no reply to the said letters nor they sent marks memo to the college. There after, the complainant enquired and came to know that due to negligence and deficiency of opposite party No.1 the answer sheets were misplaced and they are not in a position to declare the results, which resulted in mental agony, worry to the complainant and loss of one academic year and also job opportunities. The above said lapsive conduct of opposite parties constrained the complainant to resort to the Forum for redressal.
3. The complainant in support of his case relied on the following documents viz. (1) Office copy of legal notice addressed by complainant’s counsel to opposite parties No.1 and 2 dated 17-2-2005 and (2) Postal receipts along with postal acknowledgements as to the receipt of Ex.A1 by opposite parties 1 and 2, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments. The complainant caused interrogatories to opposite parties No.1 and 2 and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by opposite party No.1.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed their separate written versions.
5. The written version of opposite party No.1 admits the complainant appeared for second year vocational course advanced supplementary examination held during June 2004 and his result were declared under the caption withheld, as practical marks list were not received by opposite party No.1 from opposite party No.2. These documents are very much essential to declare the results and as opposite party No.2 failed to send the above said marks list, award list and practical answer scripts to Joint Secretary (Vocational) Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad by registered post as prescribed. Hence, the opposite party No.1 declared complainant’s results relating to hall ticket No.524764 as withheld and there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party No.1, and lastly submits that the complainant is as not a consumer and filed this frivolous complaint claiming relief against opposite party No.1.
6. The written version of opposite party No.2 submits that the complainant is the student studying intermediate vocational course and also admits that the complainant addressed a letter dated 16-8-2004, inturn opposite party No.2 addressed letters dated 26-7-2004 and 4-9-2004 to opposite party No.1 and there was no reply till this day. The marks memo for practical exams were already sent to opposite party No.1 through courier service vide receipt No.26902456 by opposite party No.2 and the same was acknowledged by opposite party No.1, hence, the opposite party No.2 has already complied with the requirements. It appears that opposite party No.1 has misplaced the same and failed to give marks memo to the complainant, and there are lapses on part of opposite party No.1 and the complainant was forced to suffer, and seeks opposite party No.1 to furnish marks memo card to the complainant.
7. In support of their case opposite party No.1 and 2 filed their sworn affidavits in reiteration of their written version. The opposite party No.1 caused interrogatories to the complainant and opposite party No.2 and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant and did not file any documents.
8. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging the deficiency of service and deficient conduct on part of opposite parties No.1 and 2.?
9. There is no dispute on the point that the complainant was a student of opposite party No.2 college and was studying intermediate course in Multi Purpose Health Worker (MPHW (M)) and passed first year in 2003 and appeared for second year in 2004 with hall ticket No.524764 with centre code No.2561 at G.A.C Midthur in Kurnool District, but the results declared by opposite party No.1, the complainant was under the caption withheld. The complainant, there after addressed letters dated 22-9-2004 and 24-11-2004 to opposite party No.1 and 2 to know as to why his results are declare as withheld and there was no response, being vexed got issued legal notice dated 17-2-2005 vide Ex.A1 and vide Ex.A2 the opposite parties 1 and 2 acknowledged the receipt of Ex.A1, even to this notice there was no response.
10. The opposite party No.1 in their written version alleges that they have not received the original award list (practical marks list), duplicate award list and practical answers scripts from opposite party No.2 and the above documents are essential to declare the results and alleges that opposite party No.2 failed to send the above documents to Joint Secretary, Board of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad by registered post and the opposite party No.1 had to declare the complainant’s results as withheld. But on the other hand the written version of opposite party No.2 alleges that marks memo for practicals were sent to opposite party No.1 through courier service receipt bearing No.26942456 and the same was acknowledged by opposite party No.1 and says that it had already complied with all the formalities.
- In the interrogatory No.1 caused by the complainant to opposite party No.1 the opposite party No.1 replied that the complainant’s letters dated 22-9-2004 and 24-11-2004 are received but reply will be given to those letters which are received through concerned Educational Institutions only. The Xerox copy of letter dated 6-9-2004 filed by opposite party No.2 along with written version addressed to opposite party No.1, it requests opposite party No.1 to verify and declare the results and to issue marks memo to the complainant, and also envisages that previously the said information was given but there was no reply from opposite party No.1. From the above said conduct of opposite party No.1 what appears is that they did not bother to reply to the letters addressed by the
complainant or to the letters addressed by concerned Educational Institutions (O.P No.2) and it is gross negligence and carelessness and amounts deficiency of service on part opposite party No.1.
- The opposite party No.1 after declaring the complainant’s results as withheld appears that it did neither processed the matter properly nor made any endeavour to know the reason for not receiving the marks list from opposite party No.2 on whom opposite party No.1 is holding authority and control and the lapsive conduct of opposite party No.1 in not at all bothering to reply to any letters or grievances addressed by individual candidates or by any Educational Institutions is clear deficiency of service on part of opposite party No.1 and the opposite parties cannot escape their liability by their gross negligence and carelessness in declaring the complainant’s results as with held and for no fault of complainant he has lost previous academic year and also the expenditure incurred to impart education during the years 2002-04, which is sufficient for mental agony and tension.
- The other plea of opposite party No.1 is that the complainant is not a consumer, imparting education and conducting examination against charges/ consideration is within the ambit of consumer jurisdiction. In this case the Intermediate Board (O.P No.1) collected examination fee from the complainant and this fee is towards conducting the examinations, valuation of answers scripts and publishing the results. These are the services for which Intermediate Board collects examination fee, hence, for which the complainant is entitled to approach a Forum as a consumer.
14. To sum up in view of the above discussions there appears docile conduct on part of opposite party No.1 and 2 and blaming each other for not receiving the practical marks list by opposite party No.1, any educational institutions admitting a student and completing his course and appearing for examination and in the end the results are declared as withheld for reasons best known to the institutions only, it would certainly amounts to deficiency of service on part of educational institutions. Therefore, the complainant is certainly entitled for compensation and costs.
15. In the results, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service in not processing the matter properly and for declaring the results of the complainant as withheld and cost of Rs.10,000/- within a month of receipt of this order. In default the opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable to pay the supra awarded amount with 12% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 27th day of March, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex.A1 Office copy of legal notice addressed by complainant’s counsel to
opposite parties No.1 and 2 dated 17-2-2005 .
Ex.A2 Postal receipts along with postal acknowledgements as to the receipt of
Ex.A1 by opposite parties 1 and 2
Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties : Nil
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to
1. Sri D.M.Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri P.V.Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
3. Sri. S.Chand Basha, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
