State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Director Students Welfare vs Anusuya Panda on 15 October, 2008
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK FIRST APPEAL NO.682 OF 2007 From an order dated 27.06.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jagatsinghpur in C.D. Case No.02 of 2007 1. Director Students Welfare, Utkal University, Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar. 2. Controller of Examinations, Utkal University, Vanivihar, Bhubaneswar. Appellants -Versus- 1. Anusuya Panda, D/o. Kasinath Panda, Village- Gajarajpur, P.O- Devidol, District- Jagatsinghpur. 2. Principal, S.V.M. College, Jagatsinghpur. Respondents For the Appellants : M/s. M. Ghosh & Assoc. For the Respondent no.1: In person. PRESENT : THE HONBLE SMT. BASANTI DEVI, MEMBER A N D SHRI SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER. O R D E R
DATE:-
15TH OCTOBER, 2008.
Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 of C.D. Case No.2 of 2007 have filed this appeal challenging the order dated 27.06.2007 of the District Forum in C.D. Case directing them to release the gold medal in favour of the complainant at her door step along with compensation of rupees 1,000/- and cost of litigation.
2. We have heard the learned counsel Miss Ghosh on behalf of the appellants and the respondent no.1 / complainant in person only as appearance of respondent No.2 / opposite party No.3 in the C.D. Case was felt not necessary against whom no adverse orders in the C.D. Case has been passed. Perused the materials on record.
3. Case in brief is that admittedly the Director, Students Welfare, Utkal University, Vanivihar, Bhubaneswar, opposite party / appellant No.1 notified vide Notification dated 21.07.2000 with intimation to the student concerned viz. the complainant / respondent that complainant has been adjudged as the Gold medal prize winner in respect to Gandhi Memorial Gold Medal Oriya Essay competition held during the year 1999-2000 and the prize / medal will be awarded in the Annual Convocation of the University. Accordingly, getting information through Anchalika News of All India Radio, Cuttack she went to Utkal University to attend the Convocation dated 30.12.2005 to receive the award. But the award was not given to her due to absence of proper identification of the complainant, by the Principal of S.V.M. College, Jagatsinghpur (opposite party No.3 / respondent No.2) where complainant Anusuya was a student. The University staffs had advised her to receive the said medal from the University later on on production of her proper identification. Knowing about this, opposite party No.3 had told complainant to receive said gold medal from him on the Annual function of the college, but it could not be materialized. All her endeavour with the Utkal University were unsuccessful even after she produced identification certificate to get the gold medal. Thereafter, Anusuya the complainant herself filed the C.D. Case for a direction to opposite parties to handover said gold medal and to pay her travelling expenditure for going and coming to the opposite parties for this purpose and to compensate for her mental agony.
4. Opposite party No.3 except producing certain correspondence between him and opposite party Nos.1 and 2 - Annexures-1 to 7 (xerox copies) in respect to his request to handover the gold medal to Anusuya, he has not filed written version. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have filed written version and have keenly contested the claim.
5. The case of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 is that the complainant is not a consumer and the C.D. Case is not maintainable which is also barred by limitation. They say that due to super cyclone in the year 1999 as no convocation was held in 2000, no prize and award have been given to the prize / award winner. They deny that during convocation in the year 2005, University staff had assured complainant to give the gold medal on production of proof about her identification.
6. While deciding the case, the District Forum held that as complainant is a winner of gold medal and was asked to take the gold medal in the convocation vide letter dated 21.07.2000 (Annexure-I), she has inherited the status of a consumer under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in short, the C.P. Act. It was also held by the District Forum that despite several approaches made by the complainant as well as by opposite party No.3 vide letter dated 29.11.2006 and several correspondences (Annexures-1 to 7) as opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have not given complainant the gold medal though promised, have aimed at jeoparadizing the purpose of the complainant and the C.P. Act which has been enacted in aid of helpless and harassed consumer against the mighty bodies. Therefore, District Forum gave a finding as aforesaid in favour of the complainant holding that a strong prima-facie case of deficiency in service under Section 2(1)(g)(o) of the C.P. Act has been made out. Appellants have challenged this findings as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and facts and the District Forum, in absence of any proof has wrongly believed the complainant that Utkal University has held convocation in the year 2005.
7. As a matter of fact arranging an essay competition by an organization of Utkal University and awarding prize to the winner is not rendering service for consideration from the participant. In these end of the view, the complainant is not a consumer as per the definition under Section 2(1)(d) II of the C.P. Act. Admittedly, complainant is a winner of first prize which is a gold medal in the Gandhi Memorial Gold Medal Oriya Essay Competition organized by opposite party No.1. Till filing of the C.D. Case, when opposite parties say that due to super cyclone in the year 1999, the regular convocation in the year could not be held and the 39th University convocation of the year 2004 scheduled to be held on 20.12.2005 is also postponed and in support of the same, they have filed xerox copy of notification dated 19.12.2005 (Annexure-2), complainant cannot be believed in absence of any other document that convocation took place on 30.12.2005 and also cannot be believed that in absence of her identity, Utkal University did not handover her the Gold Medal on that occasion and University staffs had advised her to receive the Gold Medal from the office of the University after production of proof of her identity. In the circumstances, naturally question arises as the complainant chosed the court of law after inordinate delay to irradicate the injustice caused to her by depriving her from the gold medal. The gold medal was awarded in the year 2002 whereas she has filed the C.D. Case on 02.01.2007 which is barred by limitation in view of Section 24-A of the C.P. Act. Besides this, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have never refused to handover the gold medal to the complainant. On the other hand, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 (appellants) through their learned counsel Miss Ghose had produced the Gandhi Memorial gold medal 2002 and the certificate dated 05.01.2002 which was received by the complainant on 21.05.2008. This case does not come within the provision under Section 2(1)(o) and (g) of the C.P. Act and the purview of the C.P. Act. The District Forum, therefore, has acted beyond its jurisdiction awarding compensation and cost of litigation holding complainant a consumer under the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 appellants. Had appellants unreasonably withhold handing over said gold medal and the certificate, to the complainant, the complainant, instead of coming to the Consumer Fora, would have sought for relief in the proper court of law having jurisdiction to impart justice in that respect. Therefore, we hold the C.D. Case No.2 of 2007 is not maintainable.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in merit without cost. The impugned order dated 27.06.2007 of the District Forum, Jagatsinghpur in C.D. Case No.02 of 2007 is hereby set-aside and said C.D. Case stands dismissed.
Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith.