BARKATULLAH VISHWAVIDALAYA vs VRINDA SHRIVASTAVA

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 1.2.1999 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal (for short ''District Forum'') in Complaint Case No. 492/97.

THE facts of the case in brief are that respondent appeared for correspondence course of B.Ed. of the appellant University. Respondent, who was complainant in District Forum, had complained that the mark sheet of the examination was delivered very late at her residence in Mandsaur. Respondent, therefore, alleged deficiency in service on the part of University and prayed for direction to appellant (opposite party in District Forum) to pay Rs. 6,000/- to the respondent/complainant, as per details given in her complaint. Opposite party in District Forum (appellant in this case) raised preliminary objection that as per decisions of National Commission the dispute between student and the University is not a consumer dispute. However this preliminary objection was rejected by the District Forum vide its order sheet dated 18.6.1998. In the reply filed by the opposite party by way of an affidavit of Shri M.L. Gupta, Law Officer of the University the preliminary objection was reiterated. It was further explained that delay was because of bona fide reasons. It was further stated that no cause of action was available on allegations of deficiency in service as the University services were not hired as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. THE District Forum held that supplying mark sheet after considerable delay is deficiency in service and passed the impugned order as mentioned in para 1 above. Having heard the parties and having perused the record of the case, we are of the opinion that the appeal must be allowed. We cannot agree with the view taken by District Forum that supply of mark sheet is something different from conduct of examination and valuation or revaluation of answer books. As a matter of fact supply of mark sheet is the logical conclusion of valuation and revaluation if necessary and cannot be an independent action. Basic point is whether a dispute between a student and a University is a consumer dispute. In the case of Registrar, University of Bombay v. Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, Bombay, I (1994) CPJ 146 (NC), National Commission held as follows : "We have consistently taken the view that a University while valuing the answer papers or undertaking the revaluation of answer papers or the rechecking of marks awarded to a candidate at the instance of a candidate who had appeared for the examination is not performing a service which had been hired or availed of for consideration and that no consumer disputes can, therefore, be said to arose when a complaint made by the concerned candidate that the valuation, revaluation or rechecking had not been done properly the order of the State Commission granting relief to such a candidate is clearly contrary to the rulings of this Commission and it has necessarily to be set aside."

Similar view has been taken by National Commission in Chairman, Board of Examination, Madras v. Mohideen Abdul Kader, II (1997) CPJ 49 (NC).

We are surprised that District Forum has taken a contrary view in spite of objection raised by Counsel for the Barkatullah University. Logic demands that the whole process of examination starting from the appearance of candidate for examination to the declaration of result and award of mark sheet be treated as one and viewed holistically. No link can be treated as divorced from another. After all fee is paid for examination as a whole. Only fee for revaluation or rechecking is paid separately. Even payment of these fees has not been treated as hiring of service for consideration. We cannot, therefore, be persuaded to accept the logic behind the decision of District Forum. In the impugned order the District Forum has even awarded compensation for mental agony on account of deficiency in service. Even this order could not have been passed as there is no jurisdiction provided for arriving at the figure of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation.

IMPUGNED order suffers from legal infirmity and absence of logic and deserves to be set aside. Order accordingly. In the context of discussion in preceding paras the appeal succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 1.2.1999 of District Forum, Bhopal is hereby set aside. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.