PUNEET VATS Vs M/S. INFORMATICS COMPUTER EDUCATION, GLOBAL CAREERS, GLOBAL CO. & ORS

The complainant/petitioner Puneet Vats took admission in a three-year B.Sc. course of Information Technology and Management with respondent No. 1, M/s. Informatic Computer Education Centre. He paid fee of 25,000/- per year for the said course, amounting to 75,000/- for three years, besides the requisite examination fee. The complainant/petitioner appeared in the first year examination but failed in the paper of "Data Structure" (DS-104). He paid the requisite fee for appearing in the supplementary examination in the aforesaid paper and accordingly appeared in the said paper on 30.09.2003. The result of the aforesaid supplementary paper, however, was not declared by Utkal University, which was to grant the degree for the aforesaid course to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant appeared in the second year examinations followed by 3 year examinations. Since the complainant did not receive the result of the rd supplementary examination as well as the second year and 3 year examinations he visited the rd university where he was informed that the university had not received the examination fee in respect of the DS-104 paper in which he had appeared on 30.09.2003. He was also informed that the university had not received his answer book of the English paper of the second year (GP05) and due to the aforesaid reasons, his third year result had been withheld by the University. Alleging negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum seeking refund of the amount of 75,000/- paid by him alongwith interest and compensation amounting to 5 lakh.

In their reply before the District Forum, the Utkal University and its Directorate of Distance & Continuing Education interalia stated that they had neither received the fee for the supplementary paper of the first year amounting to 800/ nor the answersheet of the complainant in respect of the second year examination taken by him. It was also stated in the reply filed by the university that out of the course fee of 75,000/- only 57,500/- had been paid to them.

The OP No. 1 & 2, i.e., Informatic Computer Education and its Director, Mr. Gaurav claimed in their reply that they had duly remitted the fee collected from the complainant as well as his answer sheets to the University. It was further stated in the reply that the duty of OP 1 & 2 was only to hold the classes and forward the examination fee as well as the answer sheets to the University and the Directorate of Distance & Continuing Education.

Vide its order dated 05.03.2007, the concerned District Forum directed to the opposite parties to refund amount of 75,000/- paid by the complainant alongwith interest on it @12% p.a. They were also directed to pay 50,000/- as compensation and 5,000/- towards legal cost to the complainant.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, M/s. Informatic Computer Education and its Director Mr. Gaurav preferred an appeal before the concerned State Commission. Since the complainant was not satisfied with the quantum of the compensation awarded to him he also filed a separate appeal impugning the order passed by the District Forum. Vide impugned order dated 11.01.2010, the State Commission dismissed both the appeals as also the complaint. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the complainant is before us by way of this revision petition.

Only two questions arises for our consideration :- (i) whether the OP 1 & 2, i.e., M/s. Informatic Computer Education and its Director Mr. Gaurav had remitted the fee for the supplementary paper DS-104 to the University and

(ii) whether the answersheets of the complainant for the second year were forwarded to Utkal University and its Directorate of Distance & Continuing Education.

We find that there is no proof of the examination fee of the supplementary paper having been remitted to the University. As noted earlier, the said fee was never received by Utkal University. In view of the stand taken by the University it was obligatory for OP 1 & 2 to prove, by leading evidence, that the fee in respect of the aforesaid supplementary paper was actually remitted by them to the University. The learned counsel for the OP1 & 2 states that the fee was remitted through M/s. Edutech which was the franchise of the University and which in turn had appointed OP 1 as a study centre. However, we find no averment to this effect in the reply filed before the District Forum. In any case, there is no evidence of OP 1 & 2 having deposited the aforesaid fee with the franchise of the University, namely, M/s. Edutech. Therefore, OP 1 & 2 were clearly deficient in rendering service by not remitting the fee of the aforesaid supplementary paper to the University.

As regards the answer sheets of the second year examination, the learned counsel for OP 1 & 2 submits that the same were sent through M/s. Edutech. Again we find no averment to this effect in the reply filed before the District Forum. Moreover, there is no proof of the answersheets for the second year examination having been deposited by OP 1 & 2 with M/s. Edutech for onward transmission to the University. This was yet another deficiency in service on the part of the OP 1 & 2 in rendering services to the complainant.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the order passed by the State Commission, dismissing the complaint cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The order passed by the

District Forum on 05.03.2007 is consequently restored. Since the University and its Directorate of Distance and Continuing Education did not challenge the order passed by the District Forum, we cannot while considering this revision petition, go into correctness of the said order to the extent it affects respondents no. 3 & 4.