Orissa

Rayagada

CC/367/2016

Smt. Manalisa Satapathy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Secretary Board of Secondary Education Odisha - Opp.Party(s)

Self

12 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 367 / 2016.                                       Date.       . 12 . 2017.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu, .                                                      Member.

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,                                             Member

 

Smt. Monalisa Satapathy,   D/O: Gouri Sankar Satapathy,  Raniguda Farm,    Po/Dist.Rayagada,State:  Odisha.                                                                        …….Complainant

Vrs.

The Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Cuttack.

                                                                                                            .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps  :-  Sri  V. S. Raju and associates, Advocate, Rayagada.

                                        J u d g e m e n t.

        The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non rectification of typographical mistake of mothers name   in the Diploma  Elementary Education,2014  certificate.  The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

          That the O.P. conducting examination  Diploma in Elementary Education    and the complainant  had joined in  the said course.  In turn the O.P. has issued an Admdit card to her vide Roll No. 24DDEO68 /13 first year  and the Examination centre  was Govt. Girls High School, Rayagada. On getting the admit card she noticed that the name of her mother was wrongly printed in the said admit card   as ‘MANORAMA MOHARAN’  and she pointed out the said mistake to  centre Superintendent who made correction in the admit card  mentioned the correct name of her mother as MONARAMA MOHAPATRA   in the admit card.  The matter of such wrong mention of the name of her mother   was also  intimated to the O.P. After appearing the 2^nd. Year examination in Diploma in Elementary Education  the O.P. had issued admit card vide Roll NO.1324DDEO68 Examination centre was Girls  High School, Rayagada. In the said admit card also the O.P. has repeated the same mistake and the Centre Superintendent  had allowed her to sit in the said  examination. The O.P. also issued the mark  list for the first year and the said mark list  also carries the same mistake done in  the Admit  card.  The O.P. had also issued the provisional certificate-cum-memorandum  of marks in favour of the complainant and there in the Roll No. 1324DDE068 was mentioned and the date of publication was on 20.2.2015.  The O.P. had committed the same mistake  in the said certificate also.  Such wrong was duly  intimated to the O.P. from pillar to post  to rectify the same but the O.P. paid deaf ear to the request of the complainant. Hence this case.  The complainant prays the forum direct the O.P.  to rectify the mistake i.e. the name of her mother  noted wrongly as ‘MANORAMA MOHARAN’  as  MANORAMA MOHAPATRA  inter alia award monetary compensation  and such other relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper in the best interest of justice.

          On being noticed the O.P. appeared before the forum through their learned counsel and took adjournments but not choose to file written version though availing  of more than  07 adjournments. Complainant consequently filed her memo and prayed to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around one year  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice for the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing from  the   complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act  inter alia  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 from the complainant  at length. Perused the record and annexures filed by the complainant.                    

                                                Findings.

          We therefore proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit. We perused the complaint petition and the accompanied  document filed by the complainant

          During the exparte  hearing the complainant examined himself and  filed  Xerox copies  of memorandum of marks of   Diploma in Elementary  Education Ist. Year,  and 2^nd. Year  which is marked as Annexure-I and II.     The complainant  proved  that the   O.P.  was issued certificate in favour of the complainant. The complainant also argued  due to non issuence of  the  original  certificates by the O.Ps  as thus  he suffered a lot of mental agony. Therefore  the complainant prays the forum as the  O.Ps  paid deaf ear  to  any  grievance of the complainant till date   so the  O.Ps  be  directed   to  issue   the   original certificate of qualifying examination of the complainant.

In   absence  of   written  version  from the side  of the O.Ps. it is  presumed that the allegations  levelled against   the  O.Ps. deemed  to have  been  proved.    The  complainant   had  paid  fees     for the good service  as per  assurance  which  intended      with the O.P and the  said payment is  made for the consideration for the said   service.  When the O.Ps  have failed to  give such service  as per assurance   for   which  the O.Ps  have   received   the  amount.   It is  deemed that the  O.Ps   were   callous to the allegations  and it amounts  to deficiency  of service. In this regard there have been catena of decisions of Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble Apex Court we relai.

 

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 prorupt    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.     

 

In our view  the action of the O.P.  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  certificate  in favour of the complainant to rectify the mistake i.e. the name of her mother  noted  wrongly as ‘MANORAMA MOHARAN’    corrected  as  MANORAMA  MOHAPATRA.

  Since the complainant is hopefull of getting rectified  original certificate in the door steps and denial of such legitmate 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 rectified  original certificate 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.

Though the basic certificate of H.S. C examination marked as Annexure-3 , Higher Secondary Examination marked as annexure-4 is having the correct  names and basing  on the same the forms were filled up correctly but the office of the O.P. has  accidently committed the wrong and the fact of such wrong was duly intimated to the O.P. to rectify the same. When the statutary authority has committed any typographical mistake  while issuing the mark list or certificate and if the said fact is brought to correct the same without allowing the students  to approach the legal remedy. Since the statutory authority  is vested with all such powers in this regard and they have to exercise such right immediately and not to play the career of the student. We observed the said mistake is a typographical and they refused to rectify the same so the complainant approach this forum for redressal of her grievance  for  improvement of her career.

Further we observed the O.Ps are not rendering proper service to the complainant establishes their callousness and whimsical attitude. The  forum 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 the facts, circumstances of the case and on perusal of the record,  the complaint petition, documents and  in the light of the settled legal position stated by us  above and referring the above citations  there  exists a  “prima facie” case in favour of the complainant. 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 in part  on exparte  against the O.P.

The  O.P. is ordered to  rectify the mistake in  original   certificate and memorandum of marks  i.e. Diploma in Elementary  Education Examination, 2014     i.e. the name of her mother noted wrongly  as ‘Manorama Moharan’  corrected as Manorama Mohapatra bearing  Roll No. 1324DDE068  in favour of the complainant immediately.  Parties are left to bear their own cost.

The O.Ps  are  ordered to comply the above direction within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Service  the copies of above  order to the parties free of cost.

Dictated  and corrected by me

Pronounced on this            th.     day     of      December, 2017.

 

 

PRESIDING MEMBER        PRESIDING MEMBER                      PRESIDENT.