Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/133/2017

Sanjay.M.S S/o Siddalinganaik - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Vice Chancellor,Vishveshwariah Technological University - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.S.Sathyanarayanarao

08 Jun 2018

ORDER

 

COMPLAINT FILED ON:11/12/2017

DISPOSED      ON:08/06/2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

C.C.NO: 133/2017

 

DATED: 8^th JUNE 2018

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                          B.A., LL.B., PGD., CLP  

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	Sanjay M.S S/o Siddalinga Naik.J, Age: 22 Years, II Year Civil Branch B.E., Student, SJM Institute of Technology, R/o Madakaripura Village, Chitradurga-577 501.   (Reptd., By Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Vice Chancellor, Vishveshwariah Technological University, Jnana Sangama, Belagavi-590018.   2. The Registrar, Vishveshwariah Technological University, Jnana Sangama, Belgavi-590018.   3. The Registrar(Evaluation), Vishveshwariah Technological University, Janansangama, Belagavi-590018.   4. The Principal, S.J.M Institute of Technology, NH-4, Bye-pass, P.B.No.73, Chitradurga.   (Reptd. By Sri.Sanjay C. Patil, Advocate for OP No.2 and 3, OP No.1 and 4 ex-parte)

 

ORDERS ON I.A U/O 14 RULE 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay Rs.4,00,000/- towards damages for delay in announcing the result, Rs.60,000/- towards mental agony and pain Rs.10,000/- towards costs and such other reliefs.    

After filing this complaint, the OP No.2 and 3 have filed an application U/O 14 Rule 2 R/w Section 151 of CPC stating that, the present complaint is not maintainable. 

The complainant has filed an objection to the above IA stating that, the OPs have committed deficiency of service in announcing the result of the complainant and prayed to dismiss the said IA with costs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant is that, he is the II Year BE Student at SJM Institute of Technology in Chitradurga.  OP No.1 to 3 are the VTU Authorities and OP No.4 is the Principal of OP No.4 Institution.  It is further submitted that, the complainant joined the I Year BE Course in Alvas Engineering College, Moodabidiri in the year 2014 and studied up to II Semester.  Thereafter, he intends to change the college from Alvas to SJMIT, Chitradurga.  Accordingly, he has changed the college as per the permission given by the VTU, Belagavi and got admission to III Semester on 23.09.2016 in SJMIT, Chitradurga for III Semester B.E., (Civil) Course.  The result of III Semester Examination has been announced by the V.T.U through internet on 27.05.2017 and the complainant has collected the result through internet.  But, in the result sheet, complainant’s result has not been appeared.  Immediately, the complainant approached the concerned authority non-appearing of his result.  In the meantime, the Notification for revaluation of III Semester subject was announced by the University and the last date for filing the application was on 06.06.2017, the complainant could not apply the same because his result was not announced.  Therefore, he was deprived off the right in filing the application for revaluation.  According to the complainant, OP No.1 to 3 have erred in announcing the result well in time.  It is further submitted that, the IV Semester exam was also announced on 27.05.2017, then also the complainant could not take III Semester subject examination because he did not know the result of the III Semester Exam.  Finally, on 07.08.2017, III Semester result sheet in hard copy has been sent to college announcing the complainant’s result.  Then the complainant applied for revaluation of answer sheet with special permission from OP No.3 on 16.08.2017 but, the revaluation result has not been come within time.  As such, the complainant was not able to join the III Year Course i.e., V Semester because of subject back and attempt missing.  Because of deficiency of service rendered by the OPs, the complainant has missed the opportunity of filing the revaluation of III Semester subject and also missing an opportunity of taking III Semester subject examination in IV Semester and further the complainant has missed for taking admission to V Semester Course at SJMIT, Chitradurga.  This act committed by the OPs i.e., delay in announcing the result, the complainant has lost III Year Course, Waste of time, energy, which caused mental agony and he has lost his interest in continuing the studies.  For all these acts, the OPs are liable to pay the compensation.  The complainant has lost one academic year of study and suffered financial loss and mental agony, loss of job opportunity for the deficiency in service on the part of OPs while discharging their duties.  Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice on 24.11.2017, the same was acknowledged by the OPs but, the OPs neither replied nor compensate the complainant.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 06.12.2017, when the notices were duly served through his counsel which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence, prayed for allow the complaint.

3.      After service of notice, OP No.1 to 3 appeared through Sri. Sanjay C. Patil Advocates and filed their version.  According the version filed by the OPs, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed.  The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties.  The contents of para 1 of the complaint are true and correct.  The contents of para 2 of the complaint are partly true and correct.  It is true that, the complainant has joined the Alvas Engineering College, Mudbidiri and thereafter changed to SJMIT, Chitradurga.  Further it is denied that, these OPs have erred in announcing the result well in time.  The complainant has changed his changed and due to technical problem, change of college was not updated.  As there was some serious technical related issues which occurred at the relevant point of time.   It is well known fact that, the University had hired the services of Minelogix Software Company to carry out the exams related work including the updating of the USN numbers of students.  However, on the direction of the Government of Karnataka, the University was asked to adopt the software of NIC but, however, at the last movement, the NIC failed to provide the necessary software to the University, which caused lot of delay in declaring the result of that particular exam and revaluation too.  It is further submitted that, it is to be noted that, the complainant has changed his college as per the University regulations and as per his USN number also requires to be changed and due to software problem, the said delay was caused and no ill-motive can be attributed to this aspect, the same cannot be termed as deficiency of service and to that aspect, the University made arrangements to such students by issuing Circulars.  The complainant has failed to take the advantage of such opportunities.  It is true that, the 4^th Semester exam was announced on 25.07.2017 and as stated above, the complainant failed to avail the opportunities provided by the Univiersity.  It is true that, on 07.08.2017 3^rd Semester result sheet was sent to the OP No.4 College and on 16.08.2017, the special permission was granted to the complainant for revaluation of his answer sheet.  It is denied that, due to the reasons assigns in the complaint, he was not able to join the V Semester Course.  Under the extant regulations, this student is not eligible to seek admission for V semester and he is barred to seek V Semester admission under the extent regulations.  The averments made in para 5 of the complaint are totally false as there is no deficiency of service.  The complaint himself is liable for the acts done by him and the complainant does not come under the purview of Provisions of Consumer Protection Act and hence, the complaint itself is not maintainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be dismissed.  It is true that, the complainant had issued notice on 24.11.2017 and the same was received by the OPs but, the question replying the said notice does not arise at all as the OP No.2 is discharging sovereign functions in imparting technical education.  It is further submitted that, if the complainant does not satisfy that, he is not the consumer under the Act and since the statutory obligations cannot be termed as service, question of raising issue of deficiency of service as defined in Sec.2(g) does not arise and therefore, there is no cause of action to file the complaint and prayed for dismissal of this complaint.       

4.      The complainant himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-9 were got marked and closed her side.  The OPs have stated that, after disposal of this IA, they are going to file an affidavit. 

5.      Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

 

1. Whether the complainant proves that, the complaint is maintainable or not and he is the consumer or not and the OPs comes under the C.P Act?

              (2)   What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

                    Point No.1:- In Negative.

                    Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      Point No.1:-  It is the case of the complainant that, he filed this complaint against the OPs for not announcing the result of III Semester well in time and further the complainant says that, he lost his opportunity to take further examination i.e., IV and V Semester examinations.  The OPs have stated in their version that, due to technical problems, the III Semester result was not announced well in time.  Further the OPs have taken a main contention that, the complainant is not the consumer against the OPs No.1 to 3 and the OPs have relied upon a decision reported in (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 483 in the case of Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha wherein it has been held as under:

A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Ss.2(o) and 2(d)(ii) – “Service”- “Consumer” – Education matters – Whether a statutory Board conducting academic examinations, a service provider and examinee, a consumer under the Act – Held, statutory Board does not provide any service in the sense the term is used in the Act and examinee is not a consumer – Examinee on the other hand requests the examining body to test his competence to acquire a particular qualification – Examination fee paid by the examinee is also not a consideration for providing any service – Any dispute relating to fault in holding of examination and non-declaration of result of an examinee does not fall within the purview of the Act – Education and Universities – Educational examinations – Nature of legal relation between examining body and examinee.

 

The above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is squarely helpful to the contention taken by the OPs and therefore, the University is not comes under the Consumer Protection Act.  No doubt, the complainant is having a good case on merits.  But, the complainant is not a consumer under the University.  The University is a statutory Board, the same does not comes under the C.P Act.  In view of the decision reported above, the complainant is not entitled for any relief against the OPs 1 to 3.  The complainant is having a right to approach the appropriate Court seeking remedy against the OPs.  Hence, this Point No.1 is held as Negative to the complainant.    

9.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The I.A filed by the OP No.2 and 3 U/O 14 Rule 2 R/W Section 151 of CPC is hereby allowed. 

Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of C.P Act 1986 is dismissed.  No costs.

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 8/06/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures) 

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

 

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

 

-Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

 

01	Ex-A-1:-	No objection Certificate
02	Ex-A-2:-	Receipt dated 23.09.2016
03	Ex-A-3:-	Admission Ticket for III Semester
04	Ex.A-4:	Provisional Result of VTU for III Semester-2017
05	Ex.A-5:-	Notification dated 02.06.2017
06	Ex.A-6:-	Notification dated 27.05.2017
07	Ex.A-7:-	Receipt dated 17.08.2017
08	Ex.A-8:-	2 Postal Receipts
09	Ex.A-9:-	4 Postal Acknowledgements

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**