By Jayasree Kallat, Member:
The complaint is filed on 6-2-06. The complainant was a student for the B.com Degree Course of the first opposite party during the year 2002-2003 at the Govt,. Arts College, Meenchanda. In April 2003 complainant had appeared for General English Part-1 and II of the second year B.Com Degree on payment of prescribed fees. When the opposite party published the results of the examination the complainant was declared to have failed in the examination. Complainant had applied for scrutiny of his answer sheets and had paid Rs.200/- as fee for scrutiny. On 2-8-05 the complainant received a letter sent by the 1st opposite party intimating him that the answer sheets in respect of which he had applied for scrutiny were not available, and as such the standing committee of the opposite party had resolved to conduct fresh examination in respect of the missing answer sheets under the syllabi prevailing in April 2002. On 29-8-05 when the complainant had appeared for the General English Paper Part-1 examination the complainant came to understand that the examination was conducted under the new then prevailing syllabus. The complainant and other candidates had submitted a representation before the Controller of Examinations of the opposite party. The Controller of Examination had assured the complainant and others that both the examinations would be held under the old syllabus on 12-9-05. On 12-9-05 complainant appeared for the English Part-1 examination. After the examination the officials of the opposite party had informed the complainant that the English Part-1 examination would be rescheduled and date would be intimated to him. The complainant submits that till date the opposite party has not conducted the English Part-2 examination of the 2nd year B.Com degree course. Due to the negligence and carelessness of the opposite party the answer sheets of the complainant were missing, hence the complainant had to appear for the examination once again. The complainant had completed academic course in 2003 but he was unable to complete his graduation. Due to the indifferent attitude of the opposite party, the opposite party was bound to conduct the examinations for the academic course promptly but opposite party failed to do so. The complainant has sustained losses and was put to considerable mental agony and pain due to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
Opposite party filed a version denying the averments in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. The opposite party submits that the petition is not maintainable. The O.P.had conducted re-examinations to those candidates whose answer papers for revaluation were missing. The complainant had applied for photocopy of answer sheet of Part-1 English Paper-1 and paper-II. The papers were not available inspite of repeated attempts to find it out. O.P. had intimated to the complainant enquiring his willingness to appear for re-examination. Complainant had agreed to write the re-examination held on 29-8-05. In the printed memo it was clearly stated that the re-examination would be held in existing scheme and syllabus only. But on 29-8-05 at the re-examination hall some candidates complained that they could not write the examination since the questions were out of syllabus. After a discussion with the Controller of Examinations it was decided to conduct another examination for the same paper on 12-9-2005. On 30-8-05 the re-examination of Paper-II Modern Prose and Drama was conducted as already scheduled. The candidates appeared for this examination in existing syllabus. The complainant was absent for the examination and later on requested to conduct the paper-II also in old syllabus. It was turned down by the Controller of examinations stating that re-examination in existing syllabus was held on 30-8-05 and all candidates have already appeared. The opposite party had conducted many supplementary examinations in which the complainant could have appeared and passed. But he did not utilize the chances. There was no negligence or carelessness on the part of the opposite party. The O.P. is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. The complainant is not entitled for any amount. O.P. prays to dismiss the petition.
The points for consideration is (1) Whether the petition is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether there was any deficiency on the part of opposite party? (3) Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A8 were marked on complainant’s side. RW1 was examined on opposite party’s side No documents marked on O.P’s side.
Point No.1:-
Opposite party had raised the contention that the petition is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. The complainant being a student of the University is not a consumer. No education at University is “ service” under Consumer Protection Act. The Forum heard both parties in detail and found that even though Consumer Fora cannot go into the question of deficiency if any with regard to the statutory duty performed by any statutory body, but in respect of the administrative matters the Consumer Fora can look into such matters. The Forum has already found that the petition is maintainable.
Point No.2:
In this case preserving the answer sheets at least until the prescribed date of scrutiny is an administrative service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant had paid consideration as fee for the scrutiny to the opposite party. O.P. was negligent in taking care of the answer papers until the prescribed date which caused the answer sheet missing. The complainant had to re-appear for examination because of the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
Point No.3:-
The case of the complainant is that when he applied for the answer sheets of the examination conducted by the University in which he was declared to be failed the opposite party could not find out the answer sheets. The complainant had applied for copy of the answer sheets but they were missing. The Forum has already found that there was negligence on the part of opposite party for not preserving the answer sheets until the prescribed date. But opposite party has rectified their deficiency by giving a further chance to the complainant and other candidates who had the same fate. All the other candidates had made use of the opportunity and written the examination. The complainant has not written the examination of part-II. As all the other candidates have written part-II examination conducted by the University it was impossible to conduct an examination for the complainant alone. In our opinion even though there was negligence earlier on the part of opposite party they themselves had rectified and given ample opportunity for the complainant. Hence the complainant now does not have any cause to blame the opposite party for not completing the graduation by the complainant. In our opinion the complainant is not entitled for any relief.
In the result the petition is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court this the 18th day of June 2010.
Date of filing: 21-02-2006
SD/- PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. Photocopy of Memorandum dt. 11-3-2004.
A2. Photocopy of Memo dt. 2-8-05.
A3. Photocopy of Memo dt. 10-8-05
A4. Photocopy of Memo dt. 17-3-06.
A5. Photocopy of Answer paper.
A6. Mathrubhumi Newspaper.
A7. Photocopy of Memo dt. 10-8-05.
A8. Mathrubhumi Newspaper
Documents exhibited for the opposite party.
Nil.
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Shinjith (Complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party.
RW1. Musthafa.P.
Sd/- President
// True copy //
Filing date of petition : 21-02-06.
Date of order : 18-6-2010.
(Forwarded/By order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.
