State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vijay Kumar vs Ignou on 12 July, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA. First Appeal No. 830 of 2010 Date of Institution: 8.6.2010 Date of Decision: 12.07.2010 Vijay Kumar son of Sh. Rajinder, R/o H. No.267, Sector-10, Panchkula. Appellant/ Complainant. VERSUS 1 Indira Gandhi National Open University, Regional Office, Karnal. 2 IGNOU, Madan Garhi, New Delhi-1100068. Respondent/ OP. BEFORE:- Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Sh. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.
Present:- None.
O R D E R:
JUSTICE R.S.MADAN, PRESIDENT:
Case called several times since morning, but none has put in appearance on behalf of the parties despite the fact that the case is fixed for arguments. There is heavy pendency of appeals as well as complaints in this Commission and unnecessary adjournment of the case is nothing but a reason to rise the number of cases in daily cause list. Even otherwise as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, the complaints as well as appeals are to be decided within a stipulated period. Keeping in this view of the matter we do not think it proper to adjourn this appeal and as such we proceed to decide this appeal on the basis of documents produced on record.
Delay of 59 days in filing of the present appeal is condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application moved by the appellant.
This appeal is preferred against the order dated 19.02.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula whereby the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant alleging deficiency in service due to non-supply of study material to him has been dismissed.
It is the case of the parties that complainant had appeared in BPP (Bachelor Preparatory Programme) examination conducted by Indira Gandhi National Open University with Regional Center at Karnal. The examination was held on 3.6.2008 and 6.6.2008 respectively. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties had supplied the study material to him very late and due to which he could not prepare himself properly for appearing in examination and thus alleged deficiency of service against the opposite parties.
On the other hand, it is the case of the opposite parties that due to sending of incomplete examination form by the complainant, the study material was sent to him by speed post on 15.05.2008, because the admission of the complainant was confirmed on 29.4.2008.Denying any kind of deficiency of service on their part, it was prayed that complaint be dismissed.
Perusal of the record reveals that for appearing in BPP examination, the complainant submitted examination form Ex.R3 in Oct. 2007, but the same was rejected as it was filed on old form and less fee of Rs.600/- got deposited in place of Rs.700/- and further some columns were left blank including column No.29 pertaining to course code. It transpired that aforesaid form was rejected vide letter dated 10.12.2007 Ex.R1 and the complainant was asked to send fresh form after down loading the same from internet along with DD of Rs.200/- by 18.12.2007. Thereafter, the complainant submitted his fresh form Ex.R4 along with draft of Rs.200/-, but this form was also incomplete and the same was retained vide letter Ex.R2 dated 16.1.2008 for want of detailed particulars of fees. It is further established on record that the admission of the complainant was confirmed on 29.4.2008 and the study material was sent by speed post on 15.5.2008.
Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is established on record that the opposite parties sent the study material to the complainant within a short period of 18 days after confirmation of his admission, which in our view has been sufficiently taken by the opposite parties.
No case for interference in the impugned order is made out.
Hence, finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed in limine.
12th July 2010. Justice R.S. Madan, President.
Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.
Kr.