Orissa

Rayagada

CC/153/2019

Sri Anirudha Padhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Self

16 Dec 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA. PIN No. 765 001.

C.C. Case  No. 153 / 2019.                                      

P R E S E N T .

Sri Gadadhara  Sahu,                                         President

Smt.   Padmalaya  Mishra,.                               Member

 

Sri Anirudha  Padhi, Residing at  Old Revenue   Colony,  Po/Dist: Rayagada, State:Odisha, pin No. 765  001.                                     … Complainant.

Versus.

The Secretary, Board of Secondary  Education,  At: Bajrakabati Road, Po: Buxi  Bazar,  Dist: Cuttack, Pin No. 753 001, State: Odisha. 

…Opposite  party.

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self..

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

                                               

          JUDGEMENT

            1.The  factual matrix of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for non rectified  in    H.S.C Examination  original  certificate, 2016 issued  in favour of   Pragnya Paramita Padhi   bearing  Roll No.009DH129  and  cetificate No. 16101366637     towards  mother  name and father name for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

2.Upon  Notice, the O.Ps  filed  written version through their counsel  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, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps .   Hence the O.Ps   prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

3.Heard arguments from both the  parties.       Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

4.This forum  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.

5. Admittedly, the O.Ps are  the statutary authority for conducting  10^th. Examination through out the  Odisha and accordingly the  O.Ps had issued the Admit card  Roll  No. 009DH129  to  attend the Examination  during  the year 2016. Undisputedly  the complainants    daughter  Pragnya Paramita Padhi   had passed 10^th. H.S.C  Examination on Dt.27.4.2016  from  the G.C.D.High  School, Rayagada, as a regular candidate in  ‘D’ grade  which  was conducted  by the O.P.   That  the  O.P. had issued  High School cetificate examination pass certificate-Cum-memorandum of marks, 2016   in favour of my daughter  Pragnya Paramita Padhi  bearing  Roll No.009DH129  and  cetificate No. 16101366637(copies of  the certificate   is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I).

            6. That the actual and correct name  of   Pragnya Paramita Padhi’s  mother name is SANDHYARANI PADHI  and father name is Sri ANIRUDHA PADHI,    but in the afore  said  certificate her mother  fathers name has been  inadvertently mentioned    Mother’s name  as  Prafulla Kumar Padhi,  and father’s name as Anuradha Padhi.

            7.Further it is observed  in the certificate, it is found that in Mother’s column her father’s name has been mentioned and  in father’s column her mother’s name has been mentioned.

            8.  Again it is ascertained  the complainant has intimated the same  mistake to the  Head Master,G.C.D. High School, Rayagada and  in support of  correct name the complainant had  made affidavit on Dt. 1.6.2016 before the  Notary, Rayagada (copies of the  Affidavit is in the file which  is  marked as Annexure-2).

            9.  Further That  the complainant  had handed over the affidavit and  original    High School cetificate examination pass certificate-Cum-memorandum of marks, 2016   to the Head Master, G.C.D High School, Rayagada. In turn    the  Head Master, G.C.D. High School, Rayagada  has  sent the original  High School cetificate examination pass certificate-Cum-memorandum of marks, 2016 bearing  Roll No.009DH129  and  cetificate No. 16101366637  to the   O.P.  on Dt.21.11.2017   for necessary corrections i.e.  father’s name and Moher’s name  by mentioning   in the original certificate  back side(copies of the same is in the file which  is marked as Annexure-3).

            10,The main grievance of the complainant is that  due non receipt  of correct certificate  the complainant has filed this case before this forum. Hence this  complaint.

11.That  about  2 years have been elapsed, but the O.P. did not send her original certificate and in the absence of the certificate, the  daughter of the complainant  neither proceeded with her further studies nor applied for her engagement.

12.The complainant  during these 2 years have faced  all hazards both mental, physical and so also economical  as the daughter of the complainant  could not able to search for her job due to non receipt of her original certificate from the O.Ps after removal of defects and the future career of the  daughter of the complainant has been spoiled.

13.  That the  complainant approached the O.Ps from time to time to get  the rectified  certificate  but   the complainant has no other alternative then to approach this forum for redressal  of  his grievance  as the action of the O.P. appears to be  arbitrary and whimsical.

                                                                                               

14.That the O.Ps are not rendering  proper service  to the complainant establishes their callousness and  whimsical attitude.  This forum  found  that the O.Ps service  is deteriorating and does not follow  business ethics.

 

            13.The O.Ps have no right to play with the career  of the  student. 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.

 

For better appreciation this forum relied citations which are mentioned here.

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.

Further    It is held and reported in CPR- 2009 (2) Page No. 42  where in  the Himachal Pradesh  State Commission  observed “ we may mention here that it is by now well settled that the C.P. Act, 1986 is a welfare  legislation  meant to give  speedy  in expensive and timely justice to the parties. Similarly it is also well known  that where  two views are possible, one favourable to the consumer needs to be followed.”

Again  It is held and reported in SCC 1994 page No. 243   in  the case of  Lucknow Development Authority Vrs. M.K.Gupta were  where in the Hon’ble  Supreme Court observed  “The importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling   the consumer  to participate directly  in the market economy. It attempts to remove the  helplessness  if a consumer  which he faces  against powerful business, described as,  ‘a  network of rackets’ or a society in which, ‘ producers have secured  power ‘ to ‘rob the rest’ and the might  of public bodies which are degenerating into storehouses of inaction   where papers do not move from one desk  to another as a matter of duty and responsibility, but for extraneous consideration, leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked”.  

Further it is held and reported  in 2002 C..T. J page No.477 the  Hon’ble  National Commission observed that     the C.P.Act, 1986 passed by the Parliament with a hope that the interest of the consumers has to be protected   in order to curb the exploitation from the service providers and the C.P. Act is a special   law over rides  the general law of limitation. Again  Section-3  of the C.P. Act is worded in widest terms and leaves no one in doubt that the provisions of  C.P.Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force.  Thus even if any  other  Act provides for any remedy to  the litigant for redressal by that remedy a litigant can go to  District Consumer Forum, That remedy exists in any other law which creates the right is no bar to the Forum assuming jurisdiction. The word ‘In addition to’ in Section-3 makes it clear that the provisions of Consumer Protection Act  are in addition to the existing laws in force and the C.P. Act provides  additional  remedies  to the Consumer.

This  Forum  perused the citations of the apex court filed by the complainant. It is held and reported  in A.I.R. 1973, page No. 855 in  the case of  Sirsi Municipality  Vrs. Cecelia KormFranciesTellis the   Hon’ble  Supreme Court  clearly observed statutory provisions to be enforced.  It is settled law that when the action of the State or its instrumentalities is not  as per  the rules or regulations and supported by statute, the  court must  exercise its jurisdiction to declare such an act to be illegal and invalid.  The ratio is that the rules  or  the regulations  are binding  on the authorities. Further another citation  it is held and reported in  A.I.R. 1975  S.C. 1331 Sri Sukhadev Singh & others  Vrs.  BhagtramSukdevsingRaghavanshi and another  Tellis the   Hon’ble  Supreme Court  clearly observed  that the statutory authority cannot deviate from the conditions service.  Any deviation will be  enforced  by legal sanction of declaration by courts to invalidate actions  in violations of rules and regulations. In case of statutory bodies  there is no personal element what so ever because of the impersonal character of the statutory bodies. When ever a man’s right are effected by decision taken under  statutory powers, the court would  presume the existence of a duty to observe the rules of natural justice and compliance with rules and regulations imposed by statute.

Further   another citation  it is held and reported in  A.I.R. 1998 S.C. page  No. 1153 in Dr.Meera Massey  Vrs. Dr. S.R. Melhotra and others the   Hon’ble  Supreme Court  clearly observed  that  if the laws and principles are eroded by such  institutions, it not only pollutes its functioning  deteriorating  the standard but also  exhibit wrong channel adopted.  If there is an erosion or descending by  those who control the activities all expectations and  hopes are destroyed.  If the institution persons  dedicated and  sincere service with the  highest morality it would not only uplift many  but  being back even a limpint society  to its normalcy.

Again it is held  and reported  in 1994  S.C.C(Supreme Court Cases page No. 44 in Ramachand and  others  Vrs. Union of India and others  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court  observed   the exercise of powers  should not be made against the spirit of the provisions of the statute, otherwise it would tend towards arbitrariness.   Thus when ever any action of the authority  is found  to be in  violation of the provisions of the statute or the action is constitutionally  illegal, it cannot claim any sympathy in law and there is no obligation on the   part  of the court to sanctify such an illegal act. When ever  the statutory provisions is ignored, the court cannot  became a silent  spectator   to such  an illegality and  it  becomes the solemn duty   of  the to deal with the persons violating law with heavy hands.

Further  It is observed in this  case   due to financial crunch the  complainant has no other  option then to approach this forum for redressal of their grievance.

            That for failure to act properly  by the O.Ps. the complainant should not be deprived of his legitmate entitlement, it is to  be ensured   that the benefit to which the consumer   is eligible after due date are entitled enjoy it and it should not became a distant dream.

            Negligence become actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission amounting  to negligence attributable to the person sued.  The essential components of negligence   are  three   types :- Duty, breach and resulting in damage “

            The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Poonam Verma  Vrs. Ashwini Patel  reported in  SCC 1996(4) page No. 332  where in  observed  “Neglience as a tort  is the breach of  a duty caused by omission to do something which  a reasonable man would do, or doing something which a prudent man would not do”.

            In the  present  case this forum observed  the O.Ps are statutary authority  empowered to function under a statute is required to discharge  his duty  honestly and bonafide, failed to discharge the same for the sake of general welfare and common good and its actions  are found to be  resulting  in harasssment and agony to the complainant.

            This forum  observed the complainant’s daughter  being an unemployed  youth attended several interviews but due to  defective  certificate, her case was rejected.

            To meet the ends of justice the following ordrer is passed.

                                                                        ORDER.

            In resultant the complaint petition is allowed in part on contest.

Direct  the  O.P. to  issue   the  rectified  original  H.S.C Examination  original  certificate, 2016  in favour  Pragnya Paramita Padhi   bearing  Roll No.009DH129  and  cetificate No. 16101366637     immediately  . No cost.

In correct  mother, father  name as  recorded in the certificate.	Correct  name.
PRAFULLA KUMAR PADHI (Mother)	SANDHYARANI PADHI    (MOTHER)
ANURADHA PADHI (Father)	ANIRUDHA PADHI (FATHER)

The OPs     ordered to make compliance the aforesaid Order within  30 days from the  date of  receipt  of  receipt of   this  order..  .      .

   Serve the copies of above order to the parties free of cost.

 

Dictated and corrected by me.   Pronounced on this    16^th.   Day of  December  ,   2020.

 

Member.                                                             President