UNIVERSITY OF KERALA AND ANR Vs. ASHA A
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
University Of Kerala And Anr
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE above appeals are preferred from the order dated 30.10.2008 on CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P. 449/2002. The Appeal No. 420/2008 is filed by the complainant and Appeal No. 66/2009 is filed by the opposite parties in the aforesaid O.P. 449/2002.
(2.) THE case of the complainant is that after completion of five year LLB course she wanted to join M.A. English course under the Institute of Distance Education, Kariyavatom', Thiruvananthapuram. On enquiry the 2nd opposite party informed the complainant that the admission date was over and special sanction from the Controller of Examinations is required to join the said course after due date and she got admission by getting special sanction from the Vice Chancellor. The complainant remitted the fee for the 1st year examination and identity card was also issued to the complainant and she surrendered the provisional degree certificates of B.A.L. and LLB along with TC and conduct certificate before the 2nd opposite party. The opposite parties issued hall ticket and she appeared for the examination and passed with 1st class in the 1st year examination. The complainant remitted the final year examination fee and when she contacted the 2nd opposite party for the mark list of the 1st year examination, the Section Officer informed the complainant that her mark list was withheld because she is not eligible for admission to M.A. English Literature course and when contacted the Officers of the Academic Section, they informed that for getting admission to M.A. English course the candidates should have studied 3 papers in English with an aggregate maximum of at least 300 marks and the complainant had studied only two papers in English which covers only total of 200 marks. So she is not eligible for the said course. She made representation to the 2nd opposite party seeking permission to continue the course and informed that she never suppressed any material fact at the time of admission and that the officials of 2nd opposite party verified the certificates and mark lists and granted admission. She made representations before the Authorities but her efforts were in vain. The Registrar issued a memo to the complainant stating that she is not eligible for the admission to the said course. Hence alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties she filed the complaint before the Forum claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ - as compensation and also for getting refund of Rs.3,740/ -, the fees remitted with interest and costs.
(3.) THE opposite parties filed version and contended that the 2nd opposite party has published the prospects for the information of the students and the details regarding the courses and eligibility for the admission etc. are available in the prospectus and admitted that the complainant had applied very late for admission and got admission by obtaining special sanction from the Vice Chancellor and only her provisional certificate was submitted and no mark list was given. More over in the prospectus it has been specifically stated that qualification for M.A. English is a Bachelor's degree with English Literature under Part III or Bachelor's degree in the Faculties of Arts Science, Social Science, Oriental Studies and Fine Arts with not less than 3 papers with an aggregate maximum of at least 300 marks for English. Knowing fully well that the complainant is not eligible for admission to the said course, she has fraudulently obtained admission in the said course and if at all any difficulties have caused to her, it is solely due to the faults of the complainant herself and for that the opposite parties are not responsible and answerable. Thus they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs of the opposite parties.
We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant in Appeal No. 420/2008 argued for the position that the compensation of Rs.25,000/ - awarded by the Forum below is on the lower side and he submitted before us that the complainant had lost two years for the study of the P.G. Course for no fault from her side. It is submitted that the complainant was one of the 6 candidates who secured 1st class for the 1st year examination when there were 251 candidates for the examination and that she would have been very successful if she was allowed to write in the 2nd year examination. The learned counsel invited our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in Sreedharan Nair v. Registrar University of Kerala,2001 CTJ 561 CP (NO. and canvassed for the position that it was clear case of deficiency of service on the part of university in allowing the complainant to write the 1st year examination and thereafter decline to write for the 2nd year examination thereby wasting two precious years of the complainant and in such a circumstance the Forum ought to have allowed the complaint in toto.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.