Date of filing : 17-09-2011
Date of Disposal: 18-09-2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTHAPURAMU
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC)
Smt. M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Thursday, the 18th day of September, 2014
C.C.NO. 145/2011
Between:
T.Shahe Jashmi
D/o T.Shasha Peera
D.No.11-1-850.
Krupananda Nagar,
Ananthapuramu. …. Complainant
Vs.
- The Secretary
Board of Intermediate Education,
Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad.
- The Regional Inspection Officer,
Board of Intermediate Education,
Andhra Pradesh, Govt. Junior College
for Boys Campus, New Town,
Ananthapuramu.
- The Principal,
Narayana Junior College,
(Examination Centre No.11017 for IPE
June, 2010), Gooty Road
Ananthapuramu.
4. Sri Narahari Prasad
Chief Superintendent of Centre No. 11017 for IPE
June, 2010, Lecturer in Botany
K.S.R. Govt.Junior College for Girls
Ananthapuramu. …. Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri D.Shafiulla, Advocate for the complainant and Sri B.Nagalingam, Advocate for the opposite parties 1 to 3 and Sri G.Nagaraja Babu, Advocate for the opposite party No.4 and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Smt.M.Sreelatha, Lady Member: - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 to 4 to direct them to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/- each) towards compensation for spoil of better career of the complainant, Rs.1,75,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.25,000/- towards legal expenses in all Rs.10,00,000/- .
2. This matter was remanded by the Hon’ble A.P.State Commission, Hyderabad in F.A.No.730/2012. The above appeal is preferred by the opposite parties 1 & 2 in the present case by stating that this Forum has not given sufficient opportunity to defend the case. Hence, the Hon’ble A.P.State Commission by allowing the appeal remitted back to this Forum and this Forum is directed to dispose of the matter as per law after giving an opportunity to both sides to lead evidence.
3. The brief facts of the complaint are that :- The complainant is a permanent resident of Ananthapuramu and her father is working as Typist in Judicial Department. The mother of the complainant is working as teacher. The complainant is an intelligent student and she passed SSC in the year 2009 with 515 marks out of 600. The 1st opposite party is the Board constituted to conduct course of Intermediate Education, the 2nd opposite party is the Regional Inspection Officer of 1st opposite party, the 3rd opposite party is running a Junior College by Narayana Junior College , Anantapur and the 4th opposite party is working as Junior Lecturer in Botary, K.S.R. Govt. Junior College for Girls, Anantapur and was the then Chief Superintendent of IPE Examination Centre held in the month of June, 2010 at Centre No.11017. After completion of SSC, the complainant joined for two years Intermediate Course in Vijayawada Sri ChaitanyaJunior College, Anantapur for the academic year 2009-2011. She passed I Year Intermediate in March, 2010 in B-grade. Hence she paid examination fee for all the subjects to improve her marks in IPE, June, 2010 and received Hall Ticket bearing No.1011116158 issued by the 1st opposite party for IPE June, 2010 commencing from 02-06-2010. The examination centre mentioned in the Hall Ticket as Centre No.11030, Narayana Junior College, Anantapur. Though there are four examination centers of Narayana Junior Colelge in Anantapur, the 1st opposite party not printed the full address of centre in the Hall Ticket. Hence, the complainant and other students also faced difficulty in identifying the centre allotted to them. On 02-06-2010 the complainant alongwith her father went to Examination centre of 3rd opposite party to write Sanskrit Paper-I examination. The 3rd opposite party displayed the register number of the complainant and allotment of room number in the notice board. After seeing the same the complainant and her father went to the room allotted to her and found missing of her register number in the benches. Immediately, the complainant and her father approached the opposite party No4 and informed about the same for which he informed that by mistake the number was not displayed in the room and in the presence of the complainant and her father, the opposite parties 3 & 4 wrote the register number on the bench and asked the complainant to sit there. At about 8.00 A.M. when the examination was commenced, as per instructions of opposite parties 3 & 4, the Invigilator gave empty OMR Sheet and Answer Booklet to the complainant to write the examination of Sanskrit Paper-I for which the complainant asked them to give printed OMR Sheet and Answer Booklet. But they informed to the complainant that they did not receive printed OMR Sheet and Answer Booklet from the opposite party No.1 and asked her to write the examination. Due to time factor, the complainant started writing her answers and by 9.15 A.M. she completed 75% answers to all the questions, the opposite parties 3 & 4 came to the complainant and take back OMR Sheet and Answer Booklet forcibly and torned and asked the complainant to leave the examination hall saying that by mistake the opposite parties 3 & 4 allowed the complainant, though the complainant do not belong to the Centre No.11017 and the centre allotted to the complainant is Narayana Junior College, Anantapur – Centre No.11030, which is situated at Khaja Nagar, Near Ganga Gowri Theatre, Anantapur. On hearing the same the complainant started weeping continuously for which the opposite parties 3 & 4 convinced her and asked her to stay up-to 11.00 A.M. and later go to home. The opposite parties 3 & 4 did not allow her to go outside till 10.00 A.M. and on repeated requests, they allowed the complainant to go outside at 10.05 A.M. Immediately the complainant reached the examination Centre by running and by that time the original printed OMR Sheet of the complainant was cancelled by the Chief Superintendent of the Centre with an endorsement cancelled as candidate absent. Immediately the complainant telephoned to her father and on the request of the complainant and her father the opposite party No.2 allowed her to write the examination at about 10.30 A.M. But the 2nd opposite party gave another empty OMR Sheet and Answer booklet to the complainant and she started writing the examination. But the opposite party No.2 and the Chief Superintendent allowed her to write examination up-to 11.00 A.M. only. Due mental tension created by the opposite parties 2 to 4 she could not able to attempt all the answers. There is negligence on the part of the opposite parties. In this connection a press article was published in Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper, Anantapur edition on 03-06-2010 with regard to irregularities committed by the opposite parties 1 to 4 in conducting the examinations. The father of the complainant addressed a letter to the opposite parties 1 and 2 about the same on 02-06-2010 and the same was served on them. Immediately the opposite party No.1 ordered an enquiry into the matter against the opposite party No.4 by appointing opposite party No.2 as enquiry officer. After coming to know, the opposite party No.4 and Ashok Reddy and Damodar (judicial employees) approached the father of the complainant and requested him to withdraw the complaint against opposite party No.3 and 4 as the opposite party No.4 is in the promotion list for which the father of the complainant refused. To surprise of the complainant and her father, they have not received any notices from the Enquiry Officer to give evidence. Thereafter the complainant reliably learnt that Sri Kristappa, Regional Inspection Officer (opposite party No.2),who appointed as Enquiry Officer and opposite parties 3 & 4 colluded with each other and prepared false enquiry report and submitted the same to the 1st opposite party and closed the enquiry order. The opposite parties 2 and 4 worked as lecturers in Ananthapuramu District since a long time and in order to save from the punishment to 4th opposite parties, they colluded with each other and done injustice to the complainant. The entire things were happened due to negligence on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 4. The 1st opposite party has not specifically printed full address and location of center allotted to the complainant in the Hall Ticket though Narayana Junior College is having four examination center in Ananthapuramu. The 2nd opposite party has not properly supervised the administration and procedure done by the opposite parties 3 & 4 and the opposite parties 3 & 4 worked negligently and carelessly and created mental tension to the complainant resulting the loss of her better career. Hence there is lot of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 4. The complainant suffered lot of mental agony due to inadvertent attitude of the opposite parties 1 to 4. Due to mental tension, the complainant did not write her Sanskrit Paper-I examination and other subjects and she lost her better marks in other subjects. During recent policy announced by the Government, there is a weightage to the Intermediate Marks in EMCET and getting one higher mark is crucial and it will change the rank of the candidate. Hence the opposite parties 1 to 4 are liable to pay compensation for causing deficiency of service to the complainant.
4. Basing on the order of the Hon’ble A.P.State Commission, the opposite parties 1 to 4 engaged their counsels and filed their respective counters.
5. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party filed a counter and adopting memo of opposite parties 1 to 3.
6. The 2nd opposite party filed a counter stating that the allegation in para 1 of the complaint that the father of the complainant is post graduate and he is working as Typist in Judicial Department and the mother of the complainant is also working as teacher may be true and correct. The further allegation that the complainant is hard working, intelligent, bright and meritorious student since her childhood is not known to this opposite party. The averments made in the complaint that the complainant passed SSC examination in the year 2009 with 515 marks out of 600 itself reveals that the complaint is only an average student but she is not hard working as alleged in the complaint. In fact, the complainant also secured average marks in intermediate. The allegation made in para 2 may be true and correct and the allegation in the complaint that the complainant joined Intermediate Course for the academic year 2009-11 in Sri Chaitanya Junior College, Ananthapuramu is true and correct. This opposite party also submitted that the complainant appeared 1st year public examination during March, 2010 and passed in B-Grade is also true and correct. It is also true that the complainant paid examination fee for all the subjects to improve her marks in the I.P.E. June, 2010 and she received the Hall Ticket bearing No.1011116158 issued by the opposite party No.1 for IPE, June, 2010 commencing from 02-06-2010. The 2nd opposite party submitted that the allegation in the complaint that the examination center was described in the Hall Ticket is Centre No.11030 Narayana Junior College, Ananthapuramu is true and correct. Hall Ticket issued by the 1st opposite party clearly mentioned center No. as 11030. It is the duty of the complainant to verify the center whether she has to appear for examination in advance of the day of the commencement of the examination. The 2nd opposite party also made that it is very difficult for him to identify the examination center as full address was not mentioned in the Hall ticket is false. The 2nd opposite party submitted that if really the complainant is willing to identify the center, she can approach any one of the examination center by showing Hall Ticket, which was served on her but the complaint went to the center at about 7.45 A.M. and entered in the examination center without knowing the center, which was allotted to her as shown in the Hall Ticket. The 2nd opposite party also submitted that the complainant has already appeared for SSC examination and also 1st year Intermediate Regular March 2010 examination and as such she got experience in appearing the examinations by verifying the Hall Ticket. The father of the complainant, who is working in Judicial Department since a long time went to the examination and made enquiries with regard to the center by showing Hall Ticket and the authorities will certainly intimate the actual and correct address of the center. But the complainant never went to the examination center along-with her father as alleged and only to file this unjust complaint, the father of the complainant is using his legal brain and filed this unjust complaint. The 2nd opposite party also submitted that the center allotted to the complainant 11030 Narayana Junior College, Ananthapuramu is an examination center for the past 10 years and everybody knows about the identity of the above college. In fact, Hall Tickets were issued to the various students with the same center No. and address as if which was issued to the complainant and all the students were appeared with center No.11030. The complainant only the person who acted negligently in appearing the correct center. The 2nd opposite party also submitted that the complainant went to Narayana College, center No.11017, Gooty Road, Ananthapuramu at 8.00 A.M. on 02-06-2010 for Sanskrit Paper-I (1st day examination) without verifying her center number which was mentioned in the hall ticket. In fact, the complainant has not at all verified the center number displaying in the College and the center No.11017 is a new one. The name of the complainant was not found on the notice board, room allotment she was found weeping. On seeing her the examination clerk who also not verified the center number properly and allowed her to write the examination by issuing blank OMR, Answer book and question paper. At about 8.30 A.M. on the verification of the absentees it was found that her center was 11030 and not 11017 and immediately he took back OMR, Answer book and question paper and informed the same to the Superintendent and sent the complainant to center No.11030 from center No.11017 with the help of the lecturer. The 2nd opposite party submitted that by the time the complainant came to Center No.11030, the Regional Inspection officer who was on his regular visits during examinations was luckily present and center No.11030 at 9.00 A.M. and after taking permission from him and Board of Intermediate Education allowed the complainant to write the examination as her original OMR sheet was cancelled by that time a separate blank OMR was given and the complainant was permitted to write examination and she started to write the examination without having any embarrassment as this opposite party has given extra time to compensate the time that was lost during the process. The Chief Superintendent at center No.11030 was instructed to give one hour extra time i.e. up-to 12 noon but the complainant used only half an hour time. The father of the complainant and the complainant herself expressed their thanks for allowing and giving extra time after completion of the examination. As the opposite party permitted the complainant to write the examination she secured two marks higher the original marks in Sanskrit Paper-I. About 500 to 800 students took examination in center No.11030 and 11017 respectively and no other student felt any difficulty in identifying the center and no such incident occurred but this incident is due to innocence of the student and her parents and it is a human error done out of anxiety to save the future of the student as she was weeping in the examination center and the complainant has not sustained any loss as the opposite party permitted her to write examination by providing extra time and she secured higher marks than the previous marks. The Chief Superintendent has to send the student out of the center, but in the present case the Chief Superintendent of 11017 and this opposite party has taken the responsibility of sending the student to right center and allowing the candidate even after one hour to the examination center by providing extra time. It clearly reveals that there is no fault on the part of the opposite parties and the opposite parties have discharged their duties sincerely and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground.
7. The counsel for the 4th opposite party filed counter stating that the 1st opposite party in the present case is the Board constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to smooth functioning of the Intermediate Education System in the State and the other opposite parties are the Government Officials, who are working under the control of the Board. The 4th opposite party stated that the Board of Intermediate Education of Andhra Pradesh, which as it is a Government functionary, service is its motto and it strives for the welfare of the students like complainant. The 4th opposite party submitted that averments made in para 1 about the description of the father and mother of the complainant may be true. The averments made in para 3 that the complainant joined in Intermediate course for the academic year 2009-2011 in Sri Chaitanya Junior College, Ananthapuramu is true and correct. This opposite party also submitted that the complainant appeared 1st year public examination during March, 2010 and passed in B-Grade is also true and correct. It is also true that the complainant paid examination fee for all the subjects to improve her marks in the I.P.E. June, 2010 and she received the Hall Ticket bearing No.1011116158 issued by the opposite party No.1 for IPE, June, 2010 commencing from 02-06-2010. The 2nd opposite party submitted that the allegation in the complaint that the examination center was described in the Hall Ticket is Centre No.11030 Narayana Junior College, Ananthapuramu is true and correct. Hall Ticket issued by the 1st opposite party clearly mentioned center No. as 11030. It is the duty of the complainant to verify the center whether she has to appear for examination in advance of the day of the commencement of the examination. The 2nd opposite party also made that it is very difficult for him to identify the examination center as full address was not mentioned in the Hall ticket is false. The 2nd opposite party submitted that if really the complainant is willing to identify the center, she can approach any one of the examination center by showing Hall Ticket, which was served on her but the complaint went to the center at about 7.45 A.M. and entered in the examination center without knowing the center, which was allotted to her as shown in the Hall Ticket. The 2nd opposite party also submitted that the complainant has already appeared for SSC examination and also 1st year Intermediate Regular March 2010 examination and as such she got experience in appearing the examinations by verifying the Hall Ticket. The father of the complainant, who is working in Judicial Department since a long time went to the examination and made enquiries with regard to the center by showing Hall Ticket and the authorities will certainly intimate the actual and correct address of the center. But the complainant never went to the examination center along-with her father as alleged and only to file this unjust complaint, the father of the complainant is using his legal brain and filed this unjust complaint. The 4th opposite party submitted that the complainant along-with her father went to the examination center of 3rd opposite party and 3rd opposite party displayed the register No. of the complainant and allotted the room No. in the main notice board is not true. On seeing the same the complainant and her father went inside the allotted room and found missing the complainant number in the bench is denied. The 4th opposite party stated that they are conducting examinations the date on which the establishment of the Board , all the officials who were engaged in such kind of the duties will be well versed with the procedure and conduct of such examinations are not new to the Board. Normal course the center will display only the numbers, which were allotted to that particular center and the room numbers will be allotted to that particular hall ticket, in the present case also the 3rd opposite party has mentioned the allotted hall ticket number against the room numbers. The complainant and his father might in hurry find wrong number and assumed the same pertaining to them only. The 4th opposite party has been performing the duty of the Chief Superintendent of the center is true and correct. The allegation of the complainant that the missing of hall ticket number and the same has been informed to this opposite party and he informed that by mistake and oversight the hall ticket number might have not displayed in the room and in the presence of the complainant and her father, this opposite party wrote the register number on the bench and asked the complainant to sit there is not true and invented and concocted for the present complaint. This opposite party also stated that except the candidate who is appearing the examination none other will be allowed to enter in the examination hall. As the hall ticket number of the complainant was not found on the notice board the complainant found weeping and on seeing the same the Invigilator, who has not verified the center number properly allowed her to write the examination by issuing a blank OMR, answer book and question paper on humanitarian ground. The complainant went to Narayana College, center No.11017, Gooty Road, Ananthapuramu at 8.00 A.M. on 02-06-2010 for Sanskrit Paper-I (1st day examination) without verifying her center number which was mentioned in the hall ticket. In fact, the complainant has not at all verified the center number displaying in the College and the center No.11017 is a new one. The name of the complainant was not found on the notice board, room allotment she was found weeping. On seeing her the examination clerk who also not verified the center number properly and allowed her to write the examination by issuing blank OMR, Answer book and question paper. At about 8.30 A.M. on the verification of the absentees it was found that her center was 11030 and not 11017 and immediately he took back OMR, Answer book and question paper and informed the same to the Superintendent and sent the complainant to center No.11030 from center No.11017 with the help of the lecturer. This opposite party submitted that by the time the complainant came to Center No.11030, the Regional Inspection officer who was on his regular visits during examinations was luckily present and center No.11030 at 9.00 A.M. and after taking permission from him and Board of Intermediate Education allowed the complainant to write the examination as her original OMR sheet was cancelled by that time a separate blank OMR was given and the complainant was permitted to write examination and she started to write the examination without having any embarrassment as this opposite party has given extra time to compensate the time that was lost during the process. The Chief Superintendent at center No.11030 was instructed to give one hour extra time i.e. up-to 12 noon but the complainant used only half an hour time. The father of the complainant and the complainant herself expressed their thanks for allowing and giving extra time after completion of the examination. As the opposite party permitted the complainant to write the examination she secured two marks higher the original marks in Sanskrit Paper-I. About 500 to 800 students took examination in center No.11030 and 11017 respectively and no other student felt any difficulty in identifying the center and no such incident occurred but this incident is due to innocence of the student and her parents and it is a human error done out of anxiety to save the future of the student as she was weeping in the examination center and the complainant has not sustained any loss as the opposite party permitted her to write examination by providing extra time and she secured higher marks than the previous marks. The Chief Superintendent has to send the student out of the center, but in the present case the Chief Superintendent of 11017 and this opposite party has taken the responsibility of sending the student to right center and allowing the candidate even after one hour to the examination center by providing extra time. It clearly reveals that there is no fault on the part of the opposite parties and the opposite parties have discharged their duties sincerely and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The 4th opposite party also submitted that there is no fault on the part of the 2nd opposite party and this opposite party. Therefore the intention of the opposite parties is to do justice to the students to save their bright future even though the students have committed any small errors and this opposite party submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and the complaint does not fall under the category of complaint as prescribed in statute and there is no consumer relationship in between the complainant and the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with exemplary costs.
8. Both side counsels filed their written arguments respectively.
9. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether the complainant proved negligence on the part of the opposite parties
1 to 4 ?
2. Whether the complainant suffered any mental and physical agony & whether bright
future of the complainant was spoiled or not?
3. To what relief?
10. To prove the case of the complainant, the evidence on affidavit of the complainant has been filed and marked Exs.A1 to A9 documents. On behalf of the opposite parties 1 to 3, evidence on affidavit of the 2nd opposite party has been filed and marked Ex.B1 & B2 documents. On behalf of the 4th opposite party, evidence on affidavit of 4th opposite party has been filed and no documents are marked on behalf of 4th opposite party.
11. Heard on both sides.
12. POINT NO.1 - The following points are admitted facts by both parties.
1. The father of the complainant is Post Graduate and he is working as Typist in Judicial Department and the mother of the complainant is working as teacher in a school.
2. About joining Intermediate by the complainant for the academic year 2009-2011 in Sri Chaitanya Junior College, Ananthapuramu.
3. The complainant secured 515 marks in SSC examination conducted in the year 2009 and the complainant appeared for 1st year public examination during March, 2010 and passed in B-Grade and the complainant paid fee for improvement of her marks in Intermediate Public Examination June 2010 and her Hall Ticket No.1011116158 issued by the 1st opposite party, the examination center as described in the hall ticket is 11030 Narayana Junior College, Ananthapuramu. Another admitted point is that the complainant went to the examination center 11017 and after some time she appeared examination in center No.11030. All the above facts are admitted facts by both parties.
13. The complainant stated in the written arguments that no instructions in the hall ticket that the complainant has to verify the center in advance prior to commencement of examination as the opposite parties have not given any instructions to the candidate in the Hall Ticket. This argument of the complainant is not considered. In every public examination, the candidate should reach the examination hall half an hour before commencement of the examination. This clause is to be for the convenience of the students. Nowhere it is mentioned in the complaint that she went to the center No.11017 in advance as the opposite parties alleged that she came to center No.11017 hurriedly at about 8.00 O’clock for which complainant has not stated any denial in the written arguments. The complainant concentrated on the loop-holes of the opposite parties and conduct and character of the opposite parties. The complainant is very focusing on the character and conduct of the 4th opposite party by putting a point in the written arguments that the 4th opposite party has not acted diligently with the complainant even though the 4th opposite party got promotion as Principal on this issue of complainant an enquiry was conducted against the 4th opposite party clearly shows about the influence and character of the 4th opposite party. If the complainant wants any relief about the character and conduct of the opposite parties, this is not right Forum to decide about the characters of the persons, this Forum advises the complainant not to make such comments against the officials and if she wanted to fight legally she can approach an appropriate Forum because this Forum is not having jurisdiction to decide the persons conduct and character. The complainant stated that she went to center No.11017 and she entered in the room number allotted to her after seeing her number in the black board is not considered because the complainant failed to explain whether she reached in advance to the center and enquired about her hall ticket number with any one of the persons at center of the opposite party No.3, who were present at the time of examination. The complainant has convinced this Forum about the negligence on the part of the opposite parties. In the hall ticket Ex.A1 there is no mention of location or center. The complainant stated in the written arguments that in Ananthapuramu there are four Narayana Colleges and it is very difficult to identify the center without mentioning the location. The counsel for the opposite parties stated in the written arguments that the complainant has appeared in SSC examination and Intermediate public examination in March, 2010 and appearing in June, 2010 examination to improve her marks. So the complainant had experience of public examination and she has to enquire prior to her examination either with her college or Narayana Junior College but the complainant has not done so. The arguments of the opposite parties is considered to some extent. Admittedly the complainant appeared for SSC examination and Intermediate Public Examination in March, 2010, then only she appeared June, 2010 examination and she could have knowledge about the verifying of center. In a hurry she might not look into the notice board and entered into examination room. The opposite parties stated in their counters and affidavits that the complainant started weeping on seeing in the notice board that her Roll No. is missing, the clerk of the opposite parties allowed the complainant to write the examination and later the Invigilator came to know that the complainant is writing the examination in wrong center and immediately informed to the 4th opposite party and after half an hour the opposite parties sent the complainant to original center i.e. center No.11030 and she allowed to write the examination in original center and also given extra time after taking permission from higher officials. This could not happened when the people of opposite parties are acted diligently. If the opposite parties might have verified the hall ticket of the complainant whether the complainant came to original center or not before allowing her to write the examination. After some time when she started to write the answers the opposite parties people came to know about their wrong and took away the OMR Sheet, question paper and answer book from the complainant. This act definitely will give pressure on the minds of the students, who sincerely writing examinations. If the opposite parties 1 & 2 have taken proper care while issuing hall tickets with full description, the question of missing centers does not arise. The 4th opposite party admitted that the complainant along-with her father went to the examination center of 3rd opposite party and 3rd opposite party displayed the register No. of the complainant and allotted the room No. in the main notice board is not true. On seeing the same the complainant and her father went inside the allotted room and found missing the complainant number in the bench is denied. The 4th opposite party stated that they are conducting examinations, the date on which the establishment of the Board, all the officials who were engaged in such kind of the duties will be well versed with the procedure and conduct of such examinations are not new to the Board. Normal course the center will display only the numbers, which were allotted to that particular center and the room numbers will be allotted to that particular hall ticket, in the present case also the 3rd opposite party has mentioned the allotted hall ticket number against the room numbers. The complainant and his father might in hurry found wrong number and assumed the same pertaining to them only. The 4th opposite party has been performing the duty of the Chief Superintendent of the center is true and correct. The allegation of the complainant that the missing of hall ticket number and the same has been informed to this opposite party and he informed that by mistake and oversight the hall ticket number might have not displayed in the room and in the presence of the complainant and her father, this opposite party wrote the register number on the bench and asked the complainant to sit there is not true and invented and concocted for the present complaint. This opposite party also stated that except the candidate who is appearing the examination none other will be allowed to enter in the examination hall. As the hall ticket number of the complainant was not found on the notice board, the complainant found weeping and on seeing the same the Invigilator, who has not verified the center number properly allowed her to write the examination by issuing a blank OMR answer book and question paper on humanitarian ground. The complainant went to Narayana College, center No.11017, Gooty Road, Ananthapuramu at 8.00 A.M. on 02-06-2010 for Sanskrit Paper-I (1st day examination) without verifying her center number, which was mentioned in the hall ticket. In fact, the complainant has not at all verified the center number displaying in the College and the center No.11017 is a new one. The name of the complainant was not found on the notice board, room allotment she was found weeping. On seeing her the examination clerk, who also not verified the center number properly and allowed her to write the examination by issuing blank OMR Answer book and question paper. At about 8.30 A.M. on the verification of the absentees it was found that her center was 11030 and not 11017 and immediately he took back OMR Answer book and question paper and informed the same to the Superintendent and sent the complainant to center No.11030 from center No.11017 with the help of the lecturer. This opposite party submitted that by the time the complainant came to Center No.11030, the Regional Inspection officer, who was on his regular visits during examinations was luckily present and center No.11030 at 9.00 A.M. and after taking permission from him and Board of Intermediate Education allowed the complainant to write the examination as her original OMR sheet was cancelled by that time a separate blank OMR was given and the complainant was permitted to write examination and she started to write the examination without having any embarrassment as this opposite party has given extra time to compensate the time that was lost during the process. The Chief Superintendent at center No.11030 was instructed to give one hour extra time i.e. up-to 12 noon but the complainant used only half an hour time. The father of the complainant and the complainant herself expressed their thanks for allowing and giving extra time after completion of the examination. As the opposite parties permitted the complainant to write the examination, she secured two marks higher than the original marks in Sanskrit Paper-I. The 3rd and 4th opposite parties stated in their written arguments that they have acted very diligently with the complainant and on humanitarian grounds, they sent the complainant to her original center 11030 on scooter with one of her lecturer is not so convincing because if both opposite parties 3 & 4 verified the hall ticket of the complainant before allowing her to write examination that may help the complainant. But they have stated that they allowed the complainant when she started weeping. But the same is not reduced the tension of the complainant. If the 3rd opposite party allowed the complainant on humanitarian grounds it might have arranged alternative facility instead of sending her to original center after one hour completion of examination. This act is not fair on the part of the opposite parties.
14 This Forum viewed that if the same thing happened in a competitive examination and for entrance examinations schools and colleges will be centers. In such circumstances if some mistake happens the life of the prospective candidate will be in peril and hence it is necessary to take appropriate steps to see that each and every college will have distanitic name identifiable with location especially with regard to Corporate Institutions like the 3rd opposite party, which is having many branches in the same town. Apart from giving center codes, the opposite parties shall give full description of the center codes. In this observation, we are of the opinion that there is negligence on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 4. Hence, this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
15. POINT NO.2 – The counsel for the complainant stated that as per Ex.A5 press report and admissions of the opposite parties that the complainant appeared in two centers and in both centers no extra time provided to the complainant. Due to the act of the opposite parties, she suffered mental agony and physical strain and the complainant has lost her bright future due to harassment of the opposite parties by allowing her to write at two different centers and not giving extra time to her. This physical and mental tension carried to other examinations and due to it the complainant has not secured good marks in the Intermediate and she lost her bright future due to the act of the opposite parties. Hence, the complainant is entitled an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and other reliefs as claimed in the complaint. The opposite parties stated that when the Invigilator at center 11017 identified that the complainant’s center 11030 immediately the opposite parties sent the complainant to the original center 11030 and extra time of one hour provided to her with the permission of higher officials, but the complainant utilized only half an hour time and she wrote the examination with peace of mind and she got good marks in IPE June 2010 examination as per Ex.B1 and B2. The opposite parties stated that the complainant is an average student and she got B-Grade marks and the allegation of the complainant that she is meritorious student is wrong and the complainant filed the present complaint only to harass the opposite parties by taking advantage that the father of the complainant is working in judicial department and the complainant filed this unjust petition only to black mail the opposite parties and get gain wrongfully and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. When we go through Ex.B1 and B2 filed by the 1st opposite party, it clearly shows that the complainant got two marks extra than marks of March, 2010. Ex.B1 and B2 shows that the complainant is not extraordinary and meritorious student as alleged by the complainant because the complainant got only B-Grade marks even in second year intermediate examination. The version of the complainant that due to stress, she could not get good marks in other subjects also. It is not considered because in improvement examination she has not secured more marks in another subject except Sanskrit-I paper i.e. first examination. The arguments of the opposite parties is considered about allowing the complainant to write examination in her original center 11030 and given extra time and we are of the view that the opposite parties have given extra time to write examination because she secured two marks extra in Sanskrit-I in improvement examination. So the complainant has not felt any stress. If she felt any physical or mental stress, she could not get more marks. About the future career of the complainant, the complainant failed to convince this Forum that she lost her bright future due to the act of the opposite parties because she has already joined in a private college and studying Engineering in a private college. So her bright future is not spoiled as alleged by the complainant. In this observation, we are of the opinion that there is no mental or physical stress suffered by the complainant and the complainant is not entitled any compensation towards mental and physical strain. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainant.
16. POINT NO.3 - In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the complainant is entitled an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation, in the circumstances no costs are awarded and the opposite parties 1 to 4 are liable to pay the said amount within one month from the date of this order; other-wise the complainant is entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of realization.
Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum this the 18th day of September, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES
-NIL- -NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 – Photo copy of Hall Ticket relating to the complainant issued by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A2 - Photo copy of letter dt.02-06-2010 sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A3 - Telephone bill.
Ex.A4 - Postal Receipts.
Ex.A5 - Paper Publication in Eenadu District Edition.
Ex.A5 - Letter dt.13-07-2010 sent by Department of Posts, Anantapur to the complainant.
Ex.A6 - Letter dt.13-07-2010 sent by Department of Posts, Anantapur to the complainant.
Ex.A7- Office copy of legal notice dt.22-05-2011 got issued by the complainant to the
Opposite parties 1 to 4.
Ex.A8 - Postal receipts for sending the notices to the opposite parties 1 to 4.
Ex.A9 - Postal acknowledgements signed by the opposite parties 1 to 4.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 to 3
EX.B1 - Attested copy of Intermediate First Year Marks of March, 2010 relating to the
complainant.
Ex.B2 - Attested copy of Intermediate First Year Marks of June, 2010 relating to the
complainant.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
Typed by JPNN
