State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Principal, Sri Gayatri Junior ... vs Manda Subhas Chandra Bose on 15 May, 2014
A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD FA 416 of 2013 against CC. No. 202 OF 2012 on the file of the District Consumer Forum II, Krishna District at Vijayawada. Between : 01. The principal, Sri Gayatri Junior College, Dr. No. 40-7-13, Donka road, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada -10. 02. The Chairman, Sri Gayatri Educational Society ( Central office ) Ramky Infrastructures Limited, # 6-3-1090/1, 3rd floor, Lake shore Towers, Rajbhavan road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad .. Appellants/Opposite parties And Manda Subhas Chandra Bose, S/o Late Ramarao, R/o Plot no. 81, Road no. 3, Maruthi Co Operative Colony Gurunanak Road, Vijayawada . Respondent/complainant Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. K. Paramdhamachary Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. M. karibasavaiah Coram ; Sri S.Bhujanga Rao . Honble Member
And Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao Honble Member Thursday, the Fifteenth Day of May Two Thousand Fourteen Oral Order :
( As per Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao , Honble Member ) ****
1. The opposite party is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the order dated 09.04.2013 passed by the District Forum II, Krishna District at Vijayawada in C.C.No202/2012.
2. The facts of the case as seen from the averments of the complaint are that the respondent admitted his daughter in intermediate course with the first appellant-college for the period, 2010-2012. The respondents daughter paid examination fee through the first appellant-college to the Board of Intermediate Education. The respondents daughter due to her ill-health could not get through three papers, i.e., Math, Physics and Chemistry. She applied for supplementary examinations to be held by the Board of Intermediate Education to save academic year for those students who failed in two or three subjects.
3. The respondent submitted that his daughter paid examination fee of Rs.240/- to the first appellant on 27.04.2012 which failed to remit the fee in stipulated time to the Board of Intermediate Education as a result of which the respondents daughter was not issued hall-ticket for attending examination in physics on 16.05.2012. The hall ticket was issued to her on 17.05.2012 and she appeared for the exams in Math and Chemistry on 21.05.2012 and 22..05.2012. The respondent sought for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards loss of academic year of his daughter, for suffering mental agony etc.,.
4. The appellants resisted the claim on the premise that they are imparting education for intermediate students in the faculty of MPC and BiPC and they are also providing coaching to the students to appear for IIT, AIEE, BITSAT and EAMCET. The respondents daughter sought for admission in MPC with AIEEE and paid tuition fee which includes the coaching fee. As per the instructions of Board of Intermediate Education, exam fee for the supplementary examinations has to be paid online.
5. The appellants submitted that the first appellant came to know that due to online technical lapse, the respondents daughter could not get the hall ticket from the Board of Intermediate Education and due to the attempts made by the first appellant on 15.05.2012, the Board of Intermediate Education issued hall ticket to the respondents daughter on 16.05.2012 and handed over it to her in the evening on 15.05.2012 and she could not appear for the physics paper as the exam was conducted on 15.05.2012.
6. The appellants submitted that they provided the best quality education to the respondents daughter in building her career and to withstand in competitive exams. The first appellant expressed its readiness to provide coaching to the respondents daughter for AIEE exam free of cost in case the respondents daughter would opt for it.
The appellants submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
7. The respondent in support of his case , filed his affidavit and the documents, Ex.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the appellants, I. Naveendra Babu, Principal of the 1st opposite party filed his affidavit and the appellants had not filed any documents.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants has filed written arguments.
9. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by misappreciation of facts or law?
10. The facts beyond any dispute are admission of the respondents daughter in MPC with AIEE group of Intermediate course offered by the appellants, payment of coaching fee which includes tuition fee, failure of the respondents daughter in getting through papers in Math, Physics and Chemistry in March, 2012 and payment of examination fee of Rs.240/-by the respondents daughter to the first appellant-college.
11. The respondents daughter paid the fee on 27.04.2012 and in token of receipt of the amount, the first appellant issued receipt bearing number 1028012704120025 dated 27.04.2012. The examination was scheduled on 16.05.2012, 21.05.2012 and 22.05.2012.The hall ticket was issued to the respondents daughter on 17.05.2012 and by the time paper in physics was already conducted.
12. The fee was admittedly, paid by the student in advance to the date of physics examination and for the delay in receiving the hall ticket, the respondent attributed negligence to the appellants while the appellants deny showing any negligence and they state the delay in the Board of Intermediate issuing the hall ticket to the student is owing to technical snag for which they could not be found fault with. The respondent has shown the cause for delay in the Intermediate Board issuing the hall ticket as follows:
.. The 1st opposite party negligently failed to remit the supplementary examination fees paid by the candidates to him to the Board of Intermediate in time, due to which the Board of intermediate failed to issue Hall tickets in time i.e., on 16.05.2012. Due to which Board failed to issue of Hall ticket in advance by the date of holding physics examination, the daughter of the complainant failed to to appear for the same, subsequently the hall tickets were issued on 17.05.2012. Therefore the daughter of the complainant appeared for examinations i.e, Maths & Chemistry which are held on 21.05.2012 & 22.05.2012 respectively and passed in those subjects. The complainant on enquiry with the Board of intermediate, he came to know that due to non-remittance of examination fee payable to the Board of intermediate in time, which was collected by the 1st opposite party much prior to the date of examination, the candidate was forced to loose one academic year, which adversely effected in building up her carrier in higher studies and also in securing employment in future coupled with mental agony and monetary loss.
13. The appellants would contend that due to online technical lapse, the respondents daughter had not received the hall ticket and immediately having come to know the non-issuance of the hall ticket to the student, they made attempt with the Board of Intermediate which yielded result and the Board of Intermediate Education issued hall ticket on 16.05.2012 and handed over it to the respondents daughter on 17.05.2012. The principal of the appellant-college has stated:
I further submit that as per existing new instructions of the Board of Intermediate authorities which is controlling authority for conducting examinations, the data of students who are appearing for examinations including advance supplementary have to be feeded trough online process and accordingly, all the students, who have paid examination fees desirous to take examination have been feeded through online. Later, I came to know that due to online technical lapses the complainants daughter could not get hall ticket from the intermediate Board and therefore, immediately we have made sincere attempts with the Intermediate Board to issue hall ticket to the Student Likitha on 15.05.2012.
Thereupon, the Board of intermediate Education has issued the Hall ticket on 16th evening and the same was handed over to the Student on 17.05.2012 by the time Physics paper was held on 16.05.2012 and consequently, the student could not write the examination in spite of our best efforts. The above facts clearly shows that there is no willful negligence or fault with our institution at any point of time and it was happened due to the technical lapse in the online process and for which, our college cannot be blamed .
14. The appellants in their written arguments had deviated from what is averred in the written version and stated in the affidavit of the principal of the first appellant-college as to their failure to remit the fee of the respondents daughter due to online technical lapse, they have contended that it is the Board of Intermediate Education which had been negligent in dispatching the hall ticket to the fist appellant-college. In the Written Arguments the somersault the appellants had taken is seen at paragraphs no.2 and 3 which is reproduced below:
I humbly submit that there is no Deficiency or fault imperfection short coming or inadequacy in the quality on the parts of opposite party no. 1 n pursuance of a contract between students and institution in rendering service, ie paying of examination fee in time. Further, the Board has issued Hall Ticket ( Exhibit A6) for all the Three subjects i.e.,, Physics, Mathematics and Chemistry but the board has not dispatched the said Hall Ticket in advance to the opposite party no.1 institution. By this opposite party no. 1 is in no way held responsible for the Act of Intermediate Examination Board. I humbly submit that the complaint filed by the complainant suffers from non-joinder of necessary party. This Legal flaw has been ignored both by the complainant as well as Honourable Forum below.
15. The District Forum opined that the appellants collected fee from the respondents daughter and it is their obligation to see that the respondents daughter has received the hall ticket in time so as to appear for the three exam papers. The District Forum observed:
But we, the Forum do not agree with the submissions of the opposite parties as due to negligence of the opposite parties, the daughter of the complainant has to loss one academic year which is not compensated in terms of money. The opposite parties has to look after the procedures of collecting the exams fee from the students and remit the same to the Board of Intermediate and to get the hall tickets from the Board and to hand over them to concern students before starting the examinations. It is the duty of the opposite parties as they are collecting the fees from the students.
The students need not loss their academic year due to negligent acts of the opposite parties. The negligent acts of the opposite parties came under deficiency in service on their part towards students, in this complaint towards the daughter of the complainant. Therefore the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant for their negligent acts and the complainant is entitled to get relief from the opposite parties .
16. It is not the case of the appellants that any of the students whose fee was paid through them had not received the hall tickets in time. The online technical lapse shown as cause was to be considered by the appellants and they ought to have paid attention and followed the fee payment process of all the students and ensure the Board of Intermediate Education has received the exam fee of all of its students who paid the amount to the appellants and issued hall tickets to them.
17. The failure of the appellants in pursing the exam fee payment process would constitute deficiency in service on their part due to which the respondents daughter lost an academic year. The District Forum awarded compensation an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondents daughter. The District Forum has not shown different heads under which the compensation was awarded. While awarding compensation and quantifying the amount, reasons therefor has to be assigned. The respondents daughter who stated to have lost one academic year has not filed the complaint nor has she been made party to the complaint.
18. Compensation for suffering mental tension suffered by the father for loss of academic year of his daughter cannot be of the same magnitude as that of the student. The loss of academic year to the student has to be compensated in monetary terms and in such circumstances, the intelligence of the respondents daughter and her performance in the exam and her other extra-curricular activities have to be taken into consideration while assessing the amount to be awarded as compensation. The respondent has not substantiated it with any evidence. As such we consider the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-is on higher side and the same amount is liable to be reduced to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. As the compensation is awarded, no amount in the shape of interest as compensation need be awarded and to the extent the order of the District Forum is liable to be modified.
19. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is modified. The appellants/opposite parties are directed to pay to the respondent/complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs. There shall be no separate order as to costs in the appeal. Time for compliance four weeks.
MEMBER MEMBER DATED :15.05.2015.