DOF.22.2.2006 DOO.24.7.2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 24th day of July 2010 CC.39/2006 Aneez Ahamed.C.V., C.V. House, Pallipram, Post Mundayad, Kannur. Complainant (Rep. by Adv.T.M.Phalgunan) 1. The Vice Chancellor, Kannur University. 2. Registrar, Kannur University, University Campus, Mangattuparamba. Opposite parties (Rep. by Adv.O.G.Premarajan) ORDER Sri.K.Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay compensation ofRs.2 lakh for the deficiency in service and to pay cost of these proceedings. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The complainant has completed B.A Afsal-Ul-ma Arabic for the period 2002-2005 and has attended the final year B.A Degree examination held in Aparil2005 conducted by the opposite party. The result of B.A Afsal-Ul-ma examination was published on 30.7.05 by the Kannur University. The complainant was the second Rank holder in the final year B.A Degree Examination. The complainant was willing to join M.A Arabic course being conducted by Kannur University. So the complainant contacted the Principal, Govt. College, Kasaragod for getting an application form for applying M.A course. The complainant was informed by the principal of the Govt. College, Kasaragod that the admission process to the M.A Arabic course was completed and admission to the said course is already closed. The opposite party had given instruction to invite application for M.A Arabic course in the colleges affiliated to Kannur University and the admission to M.A Arabic course was closed prior to the publishing of the result of the final year B.A Afsal-Ul-ma in Arabic examination conducted by the Kannur University. Complainant being the second Rank holder should have been admitted for M.A course without losing a full academic year. The final B.A Afsal-Ul-ma in Arabic examination was held on April2005 and there were less than 30 students to attend the final year B.A exam. The result published only on 30.7.05 that too after so much of correspondence of students. Meanwhile the opposite party has invited the application for admission to M.A. Arabic course and closed the admission in a last, so that the complainant who obtained more than 79% marks in the degree exam could not apply for an obtaining admission to M.A. Arabic course in the colleges under the Kannur University. All the other colleges under other Universities in Kerala closed their admission to M.A. Course before the publication of result B.A.Afsal-Ul-ma in Arabic examination of Kannur University. Closing admission for M.A Arabic course prior to the publishing the result of final year B.A Afsal-Ul-ma Arabic examination by the opposite party is a deficiency in service. The reasonable expectation of complainant to join for M.A course in the same academic year spoiled by the action of opposite party. Loss of one academic year cannot be measured in terms of money. Complainant sent a written request to the opposite party to provide admission for M.A Arabic course for complainant in Govt. College, Kasaragod. Even though there was a vacancy the opposite party did not provide admission to the complainant. So complainant sent lawyer notice calling upon to provide admission to M.A Arabic course in Govt. College, Kasaragod. Opposite party received the notice but they did not respond to it. Hence this complaint. Pursuant to the notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed version jointly denying the main allegations of complainant. The brief facts of the version are as follows: the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer. The Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is admitted that the result of B.A Afsal-Ul-ma examination held in April 2005 was published on 30.7.05. Opposite party have no record at present to admit or deny the fact that the complainant had secured 2nd rank in the B.A Afsal-Ul-ma examination. The opposite party does not know whether the complainant contacted the principal, Govt. College, Kasaragod for getting an application for applying and joining for M.A Arabic course till the receipt of lawyer notice. It s not true that the opposite party closed the admission to P.G Course prior to the results of Degree examination. It is not true that result published only after the correspondence of complainant and others. The opposite party invited application for admission early and closed in a hastic is not true. The University has fixed schedule and rule regarding the admission for the courses. As per the schedule, the University has fixed the date for issue and receipt of application for P.G admission from23rd May to10th June 2005. Since the P.G courses are under Semester pattern, prolonged extension of the date would not be possible. Semester to be completed in prescribed period. As per schedule the closing date of admission for P.G course of all branches was on 30.7.05. All the Degree results were published in the 3rd week of May 2005 except of B.A Afsal-Ul-ma.The complainant neither sent application nor approached opposite party for late admission before 6.9.05.Instead of requesting for late application or late admission, the complainant has sent a lawyer notice. A lawyer notice cannot be considered as a valid request for late admission as per settled norms followed by University in the case of late admission. Complainant ought to have followed the rules regarding late admission at the earliest instead of sending lawyer notice. Opposite party received lawyer notice dt.20.8.05 while considering the allegation made in the lawyer notice complainant directly approached the university during first week of September 2005. Complainant was instructed to make a request as per rules. On that request dt.6.9.05 the University considered the mater and granted sanction for late admission to the complainant as per letter No.Acod/D2/1984/Late/Admn./2005-06 dated 9.9.05 and the same was given to the complainant and letter to this regard sent to the Principal, Govt. College, and Kasaragod on the same day. So opposite party considered reply to lawyer notice is not necessary after the sanction granted. If complainant lost academic year that is only due to the non compliance of direction made by the University on 9.9.05. The complaint is filed by suppressing real and true facts. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence to dismiss the complaint. On the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration. 1. Whether the complaint is maintainable? 2. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? 4. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of Exts.A1 to A6 on the side of the complainant.. Issue No.1 Admittedly the result of B.A Afsal-Ul-ma examination held in April 2005 was published on 30.7.05. The main allegation of the complainant s that complainant has lost one academic year for continuing his higher education for M.A course since the admission to M.A course closed prior to the publication of the result of B.A Afsal Ul-ma examination held in April 2005. The first important contention raised by the opposite party is hat the complainant is not a consumer and complaint is not maintainable. The Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The latest decision of the Hon’ble Apex commission in Madhymik Syhiksha Parishad Vs.Manoj Kumar and others reported in 2010 CTJ 152(CP) NCDRC held that “when fee is charged from an examinee for appearing in an examination, he is a consumer vis-à-vis declaration of the result. It is further held that “the remedy under Consumer Protection Act is in addition to the remedies available under the general law. Keeping the above principle in mind we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is a consumer and the Forum has ample jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Thus it is found that the present complaint is maintainable. The issue No.1 is found in favour of complainant. Issue Nos.2 to 4 The case of the complainant is that his result of B.A Afsal-Ul-ma examination held in April 2005 conducted by the opposite party publised on 30.7.05 by Kannur University. By the time admission process to the post graduation course in M.A. Arabic course was completed and admission to the said course has already been closed. The complainant thereby sustained injury of loss of one academic year and prospectus of job opportunity. On the contrary opposite party contended that it is not true that that opposite party closed the admission to P.G course prior to the publication of the result of degree examination. It is further contended that on the basis of the instruction of opposite party complainant submitted request dated 6.9.05 the university considered the matter and granted sanction for late admission to the complainant as per letter No.Acad/D2/1984/Late/admn./2005-06dated 9.9.05 and the same was given to complainant and letter to this regard sent to the Principal Govt. College, Kasaragod on the same day. What is further contended is that if complainant has lost academic year that is only due to not utilizing the granted sanction of the University on 9.9.05. In lieu of chief examination complainant filed chief affidavit in tune with his pleadings Exts.A1 to A6 document also marked on the side of complainant. Opposite party neither adduced oral evidence nor produced any documents in order to establish their contentions and to disprove the allegations of complainant. It is an admitted fact that the result of B.A Afsal-Ul-ma examination held in April 2005 was published on 30.7.05 by Kannur University. The main allegation of the complainant is that the application for admission to M.A Arabic course in the colleges affiliated to Kannur University was invited and closed admission prior to the publication of the result of the final year B.A Afsal Ul-ma in Arabic examination. Complainant given his evidence to this effect by way of proof affidavit. Opposite party contended that it is not true that the opposite party closed the admission to P.G course prior to the result of Degree exam. But opposite party did not produce any document in connection with the date closing of admission to M.A Arabic course. But in the version opposite party admitted that as per schedule the closing date of admission for P.G course of all branches was on 30.7.05. It is also stated that al the degree results were published in the third week of May 2005 except of B.A Afsal-Ul-ma. But the exact date of publication of result has not been given so as to enlighten the Forum to understand true facts easily and properly. But complainant has given evidence by way of proof affidavit that the above result was published on 30.7.05. It is not denied by the opposite party. Moreover it is clearly stated in Ext.A4. Hence it can be considered that the result of B.A Afsal-Ul-ma examination published on 30.7.05. It is also proved that it is on the same date, as per the version of opposite party himself closed the admission for P.G course as per schedule. It is pertinent to note that all the result of other final year B.A examinations has already been published except that of the B.A Afsla-Ul-ma. Being the closing date of admission of P.G course on the same day the most deserving batch for getting the admission for P.G course automatically ousted from getting admission. The most enlightened reputed institution ignored to take precaution in order to save the situation taking into consideration of the future of the entire student of the batch by merely extending two or three days for closing the admission. The University has least bothered about the future of the entire students who has come out successful in B.A Afsal-Ul-ma examination in the year 2005. Opposite party in their version stated that as per the schedule, the University has fixed the date for issue and receipt of application for P.G admission from 23rd May to 10th June 2005. It is an admitted fact that all the degree results were published in the third week of May 2005 except the result B.A Afsal-Ul-ma. But opposite party never thought of rescheduling the extension of admission to P.G Arabic course considering the delay caused in publishing the final year result of B.A Afsal-Ul- ma. The hurdles that prevented from making arrangements for extension of date of admission as per the version of opposite party are that “P.G courses are under semester pattern, prolonged extension of the date would not be possible”. That means extension was possible but not prolonged one that is all. Here it cannot be ignored the closing date of admission of P.G course of all the branches was on 30.7.05 the very same date on which the result of B.A Afsa-Ul-ma published.Few days extension if given in the case of PG Arabic the entire problem could have Been solved. Possibility of chaos and confusion does not arise since it is a question of only less than 30 students. If that was not possible or affecting the settled norms opposite party has to bring those facts to convince the Forum the actual difficulties they have suffered or else in the usual course it can only be considered as deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. It is very difficult to realize the justification behind the ousting of an entire batch from seeking admission to higher studies. If a little more care has been applied the opportunity for seeking admission to a batch of students could have been ensured. Hence the set up scheduled for publications of result of final year B.A Afsal Ul ma and admission to M.A Arabic as mentioned above ultimately contributed violation of natural justice preventing a full batch of students from enjoying the fruits of their labour for which the university alone is liable. The version of opposite party lacks justifiable explanation to this touching question. Complainant has the case that he has a written request to the opposite party to provide him admission for M.A Arabic course in Kasaragod Govt. college.Ext.A1 is the photo copy of the letter. Ext.A2 is the photo copy of the letter complainant submitted before the Principal. Govt. College, Kasaragod over which the principal made endorsement that “there is one vacancy in this course”. Complainant alleged that even though there was a vacancy opposite party did not provide admission to the complainant. Opposite party did not also respond to the lawyer notice sent by the complainant. Opposite party on the contrary contended that complainant was instructed to make a request as per rules and on the request dated 6.9.05 the University considered the matter and granted sanction for late admission to the complainant as per letter No.Acad/D2/1984/Late/Admn/2005-06 dated 9.9.05 and the same given to the complainant and letter to this regard sent to the Principal, Govt. College, Kasargod. Non compliance of this direction is the only reason if complainant has lost the academic year. Since the sanction granted opposite party considered reply to lawyer notice is not necessary. But the University did not attempt to produce even a single piece of paper in order to prove such a sanction granted. Mere pleading is not sufficient to prove the case. It can be seen that the complaint was filed on 20.2.06. It was posted for evidence on 25.8.08. Evidence closed on 22.6.2010. Opposite prty is helpless to raise the plea of time and opportunity. But opposite party never felt the necessity of producing any simple document for the purpose of bring the facts before the Forum so as to establish the genuiness of the contentions raised by the opposite party. Opposite party is a great institution but merely raising certain contentions will not be capable of saving them from the liability. Whatever maybe the greatness opposite party is bound give evidence to support their case, which they failed miserably. Complainant adduced evidence by way of evidence affidavit that “ImkÀtKmUv Kh¬saâp-tIm-tf-Pn FT.-F. Ad-_n¡v tImgvkn {]th-i-\T \ÂI-W-sa¶p At]-Ivjn¨v sImv ]cm-Xn-¡m-c³ FXr-I-£n-IÄ¡v At]£ FgpXn Ab-¨n-cp-¶p. ImkÀtKmUv Kh¬saâp-tIm-tf-Pn FT.F {]ohn-bÊv Ad-_n¡v tImgvkn Hgn-hp-m-bn-cp¶n«pT FXr-I-£n-IÄ ]cm-Xn-¡m-c\p {]th-i-\T \ÂIn-bn-cp-¶n-Ã.-]n-¶o-Sv]-cm-Xn-¡m-c³ ImkÀtKmUv Kh¬saâp tImtf-Pn FT.-F.-A-d-_n¡v tImgvkn {]th-i-\T \ÂI-W-sa¶p Bh-iys¸«p-sImv ]cm-Xn-¡m-c³ FXr-I-£n-IÄ¡v cPn-tÌÀUvtem-bÀ t\m«oÊv Ab-¨n-cp-¶p.-F-Xr-I-£n-IÄ t\m«o-ÊvssI-¸-än-sb-¦n-epT ]cm-Xn-¡m-c\p FT.-F. Ad-_n¡v tImgvkn {]th-i-\T \ÂIp-Itbm adp-]-Sn-A-b-¡p-Itbm sNbvXn-cp-¶nÓ. Complainant was not cross examined by opposite party. Opposite party did not even filed chief affidavit. Though enough time enjoyed by opposite party no pain has been taken to produce documents and adduce evidence. Complainant has also stated that it is not correct to say that the University had already considered the request of the complainant and granted sanction for late admission to the complainant as per letter No.Acad/D2/1984/late/Admn./2005-06 dated 9.9.05 and the same was given to complainant and letter to this regard sent to Principal Govt. College, Kasaragod. In the light of the above discussion and perusal of available evidence on records we hold that the complainant could establish his case proving deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. It is quite understandable that the complainant might have suffered great mental injury out of missing one academic year which cannot be measured in terms of money. Hence the University is liable to pay compensation and we feel an amount of Rs.1, 00,000/- will meet the ends of justice. Thus issues 2 to 4 are also answered in favour of complainant and order passed accordingly. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1, 00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) as compensation including cost to complainant within one month from the date of receipts of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Copy of the letter sent to OP sdt.1.9.05 A2.Copy of the letter dt.5.9.05 sent to Principal, Govt. College, Kasaragod A3.Copy of the mark list of Final year BA of complainant A4.Copyof the lawyer notice sent to Ops A5.Postal Ads A6.Coipy of the Chelan dt.5.9.05 Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil Witness examined for either side: Nil . Forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
