State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Reddy Manohar , S/O.Mutha Swamy, ... vs 1.Aditya Institute Of Technology And ... on 23 February, 2011
BEFORE THE A
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION : HYDERABAD
F.A.No.1189/2008
against C.C.No.45/2008, Dist Forum, Karimnagar.
Between:
Reddy Manohar , S/o.Mutha Swamy,
Aged about 44 years, Occ: Pvt.
Teacher,
R/o.H.No.6-6-96, Gandhi Road,
Karimnagar Dist. Appellant/
Complainant
And
1.Aditya Institute of Technology and
Management (PG) Center,
Rep. by its Co-Ordinator , Sudhakar ,
S/o.Not known, aged about 45 years,
Occ:Business,
Opp: University Arts & Science College,
Subedari , Hanamkonda, Warangal Dist.
2. Vice Chancellor, University of Madras,
Chepuak, Chennai .
3. The Controller of Examinations
,
Institute of Distance Education
University,
Madras,
Chepuak,
Chennai. Respondents/
Opp.parties
Counsel for the
Appellants : M/s.D.Vijendra Kishore
Counsel for the
Respondents : Dr.P.B.Vijay Kumar R1
CORAM:THE HONBLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA
RAO, PRESIDENT
AND
SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN.
Oral Order : (Per Smt. M.Shreesha, Honble Member).
*** Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.45/2008 on the file of District Forum, Karimnagar, the complainant preferred this appeal The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is a teacher in Vivekananda Residential school. The complainant with an intention to develop his educational qualifications approached opp.party no.1 who is the authorized convener of Aditya Institute of Technology & Management, Warangal and also academist under opp.parties 2 and 3 and paid admission fee of Rs.3,500/- for studying M.Sc.
Mathematics through distance learning course of opp.parties 2 and 3. Opposite party no.1 sent a letter to the complainant on 24.2.2005 for submission of certificates as per norms of the University. The complainant had submitted his academic certificates and after verification of all the certificates, opp.parties confirmed P.G. seat in M.Sc Maths and the complainant also paid balance amount of Rs.915/-. The complainant received identity card and hall ticket vide enrolment no.X-4PMA93004. The complainant appeared for 1st year examinations in the month of May2005 and got marks memo on 8.8.2005 in which he has passed three subjects. The complainant appeared for supplementary examinations in the month of October2005 and passed remaining exams and obtained the marks memo in the month of February,2006. For second year examinations the complainant paid Rs.3,360/- and Rs.1,250/- on 7.4.2006 and on 11.4.2006 respectively and received hall ticket for 2nd year examinations in the month of April, 2006. But the said exams were postponed and the opp.party no.1 sent a letter with regard to the same which was received by him on 27.4.2006. The complainant appeared for IInd year examinations from 1.7.2006 to 9.7.2006. The complainant came to know that results of second year M.Sc Maths were put on net in the month of Septemeber,2006 and he noticed that his result was not declared by opp.parties 2 and 3.
The complainant approached opp.party no.1 on 23.11.2006 and enquired about his result and he was informed that his application for admission for M.Sc Mathematics was rejected by the University. The complainant has received a telegram from opp.parties 2 and 3 on 2.3.2007 to appear before the Syndicate Committee on 13.3.2007. But as the complainant was suffering from viral fever he was unable to attend before the Committee of opp.parties 2 and 3 and the same was intimated to them through telegram. The complainant gave a complaint against opp.party no.1 through IV th Addl. JMFC, Warangal on 22.2.2007 and the Police Subedari, Warangal registered a case in Crime no.12/2008. The complainant is working as Maths Teacher drawing salary of Rs.4,470/-
per month and if he gets M.Sc.
degree his salary would be increased upto Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the negligent act of opp.parties the complainant lost this academic year and further earnings. The complainant got issued a legal ntoice to the opp.parteis on 6.6.2007 for which opp.party no.1 did not give any reply and opp.parties 2 and 3 gave reply with false and baseless allegations. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opp.parties to pay Rs.10 lakhs towards compensation.
Opp.party no.1 filed written version denying the allegations made in the complaint and stating that on 10.1.2005 the Director of Correspondence Education, University of Madras addressed a letter to the complainant rejecting his application for the admission into the course of M.Sc. on the ground that his basic qualifications does not comply with requirement of eligible condition for admission into M.Sc (Maths ) and returned the original certificates. The complainant is aware that his admission is rejected and that he is not eligible to be admitted in M.Sc course. In so far as payment of fee of Rs.950/- on 5.4.2005 is concerned, the said fee was paid directly in the bank through challan by giving the provisional enrolment number given to him at the time of processing his application without the knowledge and consent of the opp.parties. The University is the ultimate authority to confirm the enrolment number and unless the same is confirmed by the university it will not create any right to claim admission in the course. The opp.party for the purpose of identification of the student issued the identity card and has nothing to do with the admission in the course and writing his examinations. Opp.party submits that they are no way concerned with the payment of examination fee or issuance of hall ticket or the declaration of result or withholding of result and as such the complainant is not entitled to make any allegations against them and there is no deficiency in service on their behalf . The opp.party submits that the Dist.Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant taking advantage of remitting the fee in the bank directly paid in the bank without the knowledge and consent by opp.parties by misusing the provisional enrolment number. The opp.party submits that imparting of education does not amount to rendering of service and as such the same cannot be brought into the ambit of Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Opp.parties 2 and 3 filed counter denying the averments of the complaint and contending that any admission done by the opp.party is only provisional and unless they confirm the admission after verification of the required clarifications of the application, no student can claim to be registered as a candidate for any of the course offered by the University. Opp.parties submit that the basic degree required to apply for M.Sc Maths is B.Sc. degree examination in Branch 1 Mathematics or B.Sc Applied Sciences either of this opp.parties university or other equivalent universities. As the complainant had basic degree of B.Tech Chemical Engineering, the opp.parties after verification of the original certificates rejected the application of complainant for admission to M.Sc. Maths. The complainant suppressing the rejection of his application had paid examination fee during April,2005 for the May 2005 examinations and these opp.parties inadvertently had not connected/collected the rejection and he had written the first year examination under the enrolment number given by the first opp.party and similarly he applied for supplementary examination for October 2005 using the said enrolment number and it was noticed by these opp.parties that the complainants application had already been rejected. Opp.parties submit that at the time of valuation of the second year May 2006 examination, the examiner who valued the answer paper of the complainant for the subject Topolgy and Functional AnalysisXDF reported as mass copying at the concerned centre and at that stage the opp.parties noticed that the application itself had been rejected in 2005 itself. Opp.parties submit that having failed to read the conditions in the application and prospectus before applying and also having indulged in mass copying in one paper and having suppressed material facts, the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
Based on Exs.A1 to A23 and B1 to B6 the District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing the opp.parties to permit the complainant to write M.Sc (Maths) 2nd year examination in Topology and Functional Analysis HDF along with the regular 2nd year course of examinations conducted periodically by the University and pay costs of Rs.1000/- within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
It is the complainants case that he applied for M.Sc Maths distance learning course of opp.parties 2 and paid Rs.3,500/- as admission fee as advised by opposite party no.1.
Ex.A1 evidences the receipt of Rs.3,500/- for M.Sc Maths course and Ex.A2 receipt issued by opposite party no.1 for B.Tech T.C. and original degree certificate. The complainant submits that after verification of all the certificates, opp.parties confirmed the P.G. seat and he paid the balance amount of Rs.915/- on 5.4.2005 as evidenced under Ex.A4. Thereafter in May 2005 the complainant received his hall ticket (Ex.A6) for M.Sc. Maths and Ex.A7 is the statement of marks dt.8.8.2005. The complainant submits that he has written the exam again and in October 2005 he received his hall ticket vide Ex.A9. The complainant submits that he paid examination fees of Rs.2,250/- and Rs.1,110/- vide Ex.A11 on 7.4.2006 for M.Sc. Maths second year tuition fee. It is the complainants case that his second year result was not declared and he also filed a criminal case in S.R.No.1052/07 before the 4th Addl.J.M.F.C.Court Warangal and he was asked to appear before the Committee but he could do not so because of his ill health. It is the main case of the complainant that he lost two academic years because of the deficient act of the opp.party in not announcing his second year results.
It is the main contention of the opp.parties, as given in Ex.A21 reply notice, that the complainants basic qualifications do not comply with the requirement of eligibility condition for admission into M.Sc. Maths. The learned counsel for the opp.party contended that as per the prospectus M.Sc. Branch-I Mathematics ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA is as follows:
A candidate who has passed the B.Sc. degree examination in branch -1 Maths or B.Sc applied science of this university or an examination of some other university accepted by the Syndicate as equivalent thereto .
While quoting the aforementioned eligibility criterion, the learned counsel for the opp.party submitted that they are ready and willing to allow the complainant to write the M.Sc. Maths second year examination. It is pertinent to note that the opp.party did not prefer any appeal. The act of the opp.party in accepting the admission of the complainant herein and issuing a hall ticket and allowing him to sit for the first year examination and thereafter withholding the result of the second year examination on the ground that B.Tech is not a qualifying exam to sit for M.Sc. Maths examinations amounts to deficiency of service. The material on record evidences that the marks sheet was also issued for the first year M.Sc. exam(Ex.A7). Having admitted the student and two years later stating that he does not have the qualifications to appear for M.Sc. Maths at the belated stage amounts to negligence on behalf of the opp.party and to reiterate, the opp.party did not choose to prefer any appeal.
Keeping the aforementioned reasons in view we are of the considered opinion that as per the eligibility criterion in page 5 of the prospectus for M.Sc. Maths, the syndicate can examine the B.Tech qualification of the complainant herein and as submitted by the learned counsel for the opp.party, the complainant can be given opportunity to appear for the second year M.Sc Maths examination in the relevant subjects and on his passing of the examinations, be given the concerned certificate. The contention that he be awarded a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs is not being allowed in the absence of any documentary evidence of the exact monetary loss that he suffered on account of his second year results not being announced.
The complainant also ought to have been diligent in perusing the eligibility criterion at the time of applying to the said course. With the aforementioned directions we modify the order of the District Forum.
In the result this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified with the direction to the Syndicate to examine the complainants eligibility criterion and as submitted by the learned counsel for the opp.party the complainant be allowed to sit for the second year examination and on his passing of the exam the relevant certificate is to be given to him. We also award costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the complainant.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dt.
23.2.2011