A 21-year-old girl has won a legal battle against a Bangalore-based private college, whose negligence in delivering her marks card forced her to appear twice for an examination.

The 3rd Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has treated this negligence by Sri Jagadguru Renukacharya College for Women, Rajajinagar, as “deficiency of service” under the Consumer Protection Act, and asked the college to pay Rs. 20,000 compensation to the student along with Rs. 5,000 in litigation cost.

A bench of the forum comprising its president T. Rajashekharaiah and member Subhashibi passed the order on a complaint filed by D. Rekha. The student had joined B.Com in the academic year 2008-09 and she had failed in Business Statistics. She had taken re-examination in the subject in 2010. It was her claim that she was forced to appear for re-examination in the subject twice as Bangalore University did not announce the results of the re-examination till June and her college handed over the marks of June 2010 examination only in June 2012.

However, the forum did not find any negligence on the part of the varsity, but the complainant, who had secured only 18 marks, had applied for re-evaluation. The varsity said that there was delay in announcing results of revaluation as some answer scripts, including of the complainant, were missing and finally results of re-evaluation was announced in June 2011 in which she had passed. The varsity had also sent her marks card to the college in August 2011. The forum found that it was the college that had failed to deliver the marks card immediately to the complainant.

Unnecessarily charging the telephone customers for services not activated by them and then waiving of such sums on receipt of complaints will amount to deficiency in service.

The 3rd Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, in its order on a complaint against Bharti Airtel Ltd, has ruled in this regard while directing the service provider to refund the sum charged to a customer for activating extra data usage in the absence of such a request.

A bench comprising forum’s president T. Rajashekharaiah and member Subhashibi passed the order on a complaint by Chinmay Dargar of Bangalore. He had complained that the service provider had charged Rs.1,500 thrice on different dates between December 2012 and February 2013 for the alleged reason that he had activated 50 GB of extra date usage. However, the service provider had claimed that the complainant had opted for extra data usage by clicking popup facility but an amount of Rs. 4,997 was waived from his bill as a “goodwill gesture and without prejudice”. Pointing out that the service provider could not submit any material to prove its claim of waiver, the forum has also held that there was no need for the service provider to agree for refund unless any wrong claim was made.

More In: Bangalore