JITENDER KUMAR vs INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS INDIA (ICAI)

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is directed against order dated 4.1.2003, passed by District Forum (Central), Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 192/2002 entitled - Jatinder Kumar v. THE President, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), New Delhi.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal briefly stated, are that the appellant Shri Jatinder Kumar had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the appellant had appeared in an examination which was held in November, 1999 and was conducted by the respondent. It was stated that as per marks sheet made available to him in respect of the above said examination, he was declared to have failed in that examination as in paper-I (Group-I), the awarded marks were shown as ''33'' though the appellant had expected to secure more than 50 marks. It was stated that the appellant applied for re-evaluation of the answer sheet and a standard reply was sent to him that there was no change. THE father of the appellant made a representation to the respondent and the respondent vide letter dated 14.12.2001 replied that there was no discrepancy in the marks already communicated to the appellant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, it was prayed by the appellant that the matter be directed to be fully investigated and in case any mala fide act was found on the part of the respondent, the appellant may be awarded suitable compensation. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent. In the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the respondent, a preliminary objection was taken that the appellant was not a ''consumer'' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act and that the relief sought for by the appellant did not fall within the ambit and scope of Section 14 of the Act.

On merits it was stated that the respondent is a creation of an Act of Parliament and examinations were being conducted by the respondent in the months of May and November every year which were managed and controlled by a Council in accordance with the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988. It was stated that the appellant could secure only 33 marks in Paper-I (Group-I). It was further stated that the appellant represented for re-evaluation which was carried out in accordance with the provisions contained in Regulation No. 39(4)(1) of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988. It was stated that no mistake could be detected and the result of verification was duly communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 16.3.2000. It was also stated that the father of the appellant also made a representation on 15.11.2001 which was duly replied to by the respondent on 14.12.2001. It was stated that the complaint, filed by the appellant, was without any merit and deserved to be dismissed.

THE learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that the respondent was not guilty of any deficiency in service and on the basis of the above finding has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

WE have heard Mr. K. Lall, the authorised representative of the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. The short question requiring consideration by this Commission in the present appeal is as to whether was there any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent in the given facts ? On the basis of material on record, it is not in dispute that the appellant had appeared in the examination conducted by respondent in November, 1999. It is also not in dispute that in Paper-I (Group-I), the appellant could secure only 33 marks and, therefore, was declared to have failed. A request for re-evaluation was made by the appellant and re-evaluation/re-verification was carried out by the respondent in accordance with the statutory provisions contained in the Chartered Accounts Regulations, 1988. The authorised representative of the appellant has failed to satisfy us as to in what manner there was deficiency in service, defect or imperfection on the part of the respondent in the given facts. The respondent, as a matter of fact, have discharged its statutory obligation by conducting the examination, declaring the result and thereafter by entertaining the request of the appellant for re-evaluation. Not only this, even the representation made by the father of the appellant had been duly considered by the respondent. From the narration of the above facts, it is apparent that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent in the given facts. The order, being impugned in the present proceedings, is a well reasoned order which suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed in limine.