MANTOSH KUMAR Vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE VISUALLY HANDICAPPED
LAWS(UTNCDRC)-2013-8-3
UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on August 26,2013

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

C.C.Pant, Member: - (1.) THESE two appeals arise out of the order dated 17.12.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, in consumer complaint No. 355 of 2012, whereby the District Forum has partly allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - for mental agony suffered by him and Rs. 1,000/ - towards cost of litigation within a month from the date of the order, failing which the opposite party has also been held liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the above amount from the date of filing the consumer complaint till payment.
(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Shri Mantosh Kumar, a resident of Kailash Nagar Colony, Chas, District Bokaro, Jharkhand, took admission in B.Ed. Special Education (Visual Impairment) programme run by National Institute for the Visually Handicapped (for short "Institute") - opposite party for the academic year 2011 -12. After completion of the session, the Institute did not conduct the examination. When the complainant enquired about it, he came to know that the Institute was not granted affiliation by Uttarakhand Technical University (for short "UTU"). The complainant has also stated in his complaint that after completion of the course, he was allowed to appear in the entrance test for M.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) programme for the academic year 2012 -13. He secured 73 marks in the said test including interview and stood 14th in the rank in merit list. The complainant has alleged that the candidates securing less marks, in comparison of him, were admitted in the said course, but he could not get admission, because he could not submit his marks sheet of B.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) by that time. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, partly allowed the consumer complaint vide its order dated 17.12.2012 and directed the opposite party - Institute, as stated above. Aggrieved by the said order, the Institute has filed First Appeal No. 14 of 2013, while not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to the complainant by the District Forum, the complainant has filed First Appeal No. 01 of 2013 for enhancement. As both the appeals arise out of the same order, these are being disposed of by this common order.
(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. The learned counsel for the Institute, appellant in First Appeal No. 14 of 2013 and respondent in First Appeal No. 01 of 2013, argued that the impugned order is based on incorrect facts. The learned counsel pointed out to para No. 3 of page No. 2 of the impugned order, wherein the District Forum has stated that U.T.U. had granted affiliation to the Institute for B.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) course for the first time for academic session 2011 -12. The learned counsel said that the affiliation was granted for the academic session 2010 -11 for the first time which 30.06.2011 and the Institute had applied for extension of the affiliation well in time after getting approval for the said course from Rehabilitation Council of India (for short "R.C.I."). Though there was some delay in getting the affiliation from U.T.U., but the affiliation was ultimately granted for the academic years 2011 -12, 2012 -13 and 2013 -14. The complainant has been awarded the degree of B.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) by U.T.U. and, therefore, the allegation made by the complainant against the Institute that the Institute was not affiliated to U.T.U. and his future had become dark, is totally false. So far as the allegation in respect of admission in M.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that there were 15 seats for this course. The complainant had 12th rank among the candidates of General Category in the merit list prepared on the basis of the entrance test. Out of these 15 seats, there were only 7 seats for the General Category candidates. So, as per the merit list, the complainant had no chance of getting admission in the M.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) course. The learned counsel also submitted that some delay in getting the affiliation had occurred due to some unavoidable circumstances, which have been explained by the Institute in the written statement submitted before the District Forum. The complainant has not suffered any loss because he has been awarded a duly recognized degree. The District Forum has failed to appreciate these facts of the case and, thus, the impugned order suffers from gross factual and legal infirmity and is liable to be set aside.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.