ANANT NAGOJI NAVAGEKAR vs MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYA JAMBOTI

THIS appeal is by the complainant challenging the order of the DF dismissing his complaint.

THE facts in this case are as follows: THE complainant has taken SSLC Examination conducted by O.P. 3 in the month of April 2002. THE results of the candidates who have taken the SSLC Examination were published in the month of May 2002. THE complainant as per the declaration of the result has passed the SSLC Examination. THEreafter, when he went to O.P. 1 institution for the Marks Card the same was not issued to him on the ground that O.P. 1 institution has not received the original Marks Card of the complainant along with other Marks Cards. According to the complainant non issue of original Marks Card has made the complainant to deprive of his right to join any course for the year 2002-03 and 2003-04. O.P. 1 has filed its version wherein it is stated the bundle of Marks Cards were received by O.P. 1 on 3.7.2002. In that bundle four original Marks Cards of four students including the appellant were not received and, therefore, O.P. 1 issued provisional Marks card to all the candidates on 6.7.2002. It is further stated that three candidates out of four were all got admitted to different courses on the basis of the provisional Marks Card and if that so there is no reason for the complainant to say that he is deprived of an opportunity of getting himself admitted to any course on the basis of the provisional Marks Card.

O.P. 3 has also filed the version stating that there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P. 3 and, therefore, there is no liability to pay any damages.

THE DF after hearing both the parties has dismissed the complaint holding that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a "consumer " as defined under the Act. This order is under challenge by the complainant in this appeal. The learned Counsel appearing for O.P. 3 seriously contended that the complainant is not a consumer since any person appears for the examination cannot be regarded as a person who had hired or availed of the services of the Board. In support of this decision he relied upon the decision in the case of Chairman, Board of Examinations, Madras v. Mohideen Abdul Kader reported in II (1997) CPJ 49 (NC)=1996 (1) CPR 114. The above said decison is in favour of the complainant and against O.P. 3. The majority view of the said judgment is that the complainant was considered as a consumer and accordingly granted the relief in favour of the consumer.

THIS Commission has also taken the view that if there is any negligence on the part of the authorities who conducted the examination is liable to pay compensation to the person who suffered the loss because of the deficiency in service or the negligence. It is not in dispute that O.P. 3 has collected the fee for conducting the examination. Once the fee is collected for the examination there is a duty cast upon O.P. 3 to conduct the examination till the declaration of the result and thereafter to handover the required Marks Card to the candidates who appeared for the examination. In the instant case no doubt O.P. 3 had sent a bundle consisting of Marks Cards to O.P. 1. O.P. 1 received the said bundle on 3.7.2002. It is not in dispute that the said bundle did not contain Marks Cards of four candidates. The same was intimated by O.P. 1 to O.P. 3 on 10.7.2002, 20.10.2002 and on 28.10.2003. But O.P. 3 in spite of receiving the said letters has not taken any steps to send the Marks Cards either to O.P. 1 or to the Candidate till 3.7.2003. O.P. 3 is also not in a position to explain the reason for the delay in sending the Marks Cards. If that is so there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P. 3. If at all if a candidate did not get any admision in any of the Institution in the absence of Marks Card then it deprives a person from getting admission to any of the recogniased course.

IN the instant case the complainant no doubt has not produced any acceptable evidence to show that in the absence of Provisional Marks Card he has been deprived of getting admission in any of the INstitution. Even though the complainant has not suffered mentally or physically in our view since there is an unreasonable delay on the part of O.P. 3 in sending the Duplicate Marks Card we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P. 3. Admittedly all the Marks Cards of the students were sent and received by O.P. 1 on 3.7.2002 whereas the Duplicate Marks Cards of the complainant has been issued by O.P. 3 only on 3.10.2003.

FROM this it is seen that there is a delay of about more than one year three months in issuing the Duplicate Marks Card. Hence we hold that the complainant is entitled for compensation from O.P. 3. Taking into consideration that the complainant was not able to establish what is the mental agony that he has suffered we are of the view awarding a sum of Rs. 25,000 as compensation in favour of the complainant would meet the ends of justice. In the result, we pass the following ORDER

Appeal is allowed.

IMPUGNED order is set aside. Complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part directing O.P. 3 to pay Rs. 25,000 to the complainant within two months from today.

IN the event if O.P. 3 fails to pay the said amount as directed above, O.P. 3 is liable to pay interest at 12% per annum on the said sum of Rs. 25,000 from the date of the complaint filed before the DF till realization. It is also open for O.P. 3 to recover the said money from the officer that is the Secretary, who was in the office durig the relevant time. The appellant/O.P. 3 is also directed to pay Rs. 1,000 towards the costs of these proceedings. Appeal allowed.