Guru Jambheshwar University vs DIMPLE BANSAL

-THIS order of ours will dispose of First Appeal Nos. 1020 to 1023 and 1044 to 1047 of 2006 as identical facts are involved in all these appeals. For sake of convenience facts are being taken from First Appeal No. 1020 of 2006.

DIMPLE Bansal complainant had filed a complaint before the District Forum against M/s. Mehtab Computers, Barnala and Guru Jambheshwar University, Hisar (hereinafter to be referred to as "the University" ). M/s. Mehtab Computers is an authorized study centre of the University and was running a course of Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application (in short "pgdca" ). The Computer Centre was supplying the material, etc. and preparing the students for the examinations to be held by the University. The complainant in this case as well as the complainants in other cases had got admitted themselves in M/s. Mehtab Computers in the Session 2004-05 by depositing Rs. 13,000 each for two semesters. The examination is held by the University semester-wise. The duration of the semester was about six months. All the complainants appeared in the examination held by the University in the first semester in February 2005. The result was declared by the University on 27th of May, 2005 on the Website of the University on the internet. The University dispatched the result of the candidates to various Computer Centres including M/s. Mehtab Computers on 2nd of July, 2005 which was received by it on 11. 7. 2005. On 17th of August, 2005 complaints were filed before the District Forum, inter alia, alleging that it was in the first week of July 2005 that the complainants got information from some reliable sources that the result of first semester of PGDCA had been declared and the same had been sent by the University to the Computer Centre for forwarding the same to the candidates including the complainants. The grievance made was that the Computer Centre never gave any information nor supplied any detailed marks certificates to the complainants till filing of the complaints. Further it was stated that the complainants had approached the University to obtain the detailed marks certificates but they were told by the University that the result had already been declared in the month of May 2005 which could be verified from the Website of the University on Internet. As per the opposite parties before the District Forum the detailed marks certificates were dispatched by the University to the Computer Centre on 13th of September, 2005 and on 20th of September, 2005 Computer Centre had asked the candidates including the complainants to collect their detailed marks certificates which they did not do and the same were handed over to the Counsel for the complainants before the District Forum on 3rd of October, 2005. After appreciating the evidence and the arguments the District Forum allowed the complaints in the following terms: "18. In these premises, therefore, the complaint is allowed. Since it has come on record that the CC has already received the original DMC, therefore in the given situation, opposite party Nos. 1 and 3, whose liability is joint and several are directed to- (a) give a chance to the CC as to the revaluation of reappear papers in due course; (b) allow the CC to sit in the examination to follow in the reappear paper (s) at Barnala Centre of opposite party number 1 in due course; (c) pay a compensation of Rs. 30,000 to the CC in lieu of the CC having lost one peculiar year of her academic career; and (d) pay a sum of Rs. 3,000 as litigation expenses. 20. However, since nothing has come on record to show that opposite party Number 2 is the Administrator of opposite party number 1. As such, the complaint against her stands dismissed. There is no order as to costs. "

It is the case of the appellant that even when the detailed marks certificates were given to the Counsel for the complainants there was sufficient time to ask for revaluation if so advised. Further for sitting in the reappear examination the form, etc. has to be submitted to the Computer Centre for onward transmission to the University but no such form was submitted by the complainants to the Computer Centre for the purpose of sitting in the reappear papers. Learned Counsel for the Computer Centre has also brought to our notice interim order of the District Forum dated 9. 1. 2006 that complainant was asked to appear with complete from for reappearing in examination but she did not turn up. The order dated 9. 1. 2006 reads as under: "present: Counsel for parties. Mrs. Vandana Bansal opposite party. Complainant''s learned Counsel states that complainant was asked to appear with complete form for re-appearing in examination but has not turned up. In view of this the application of the complainant for attestation of the said form needs no further action. Date is prayed for reply to the application of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 by learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3 saying that the documents asked for therein could not be found and the reply could not be prepared due to short time. Be filed on 19. 1. 2006. "

ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent complainant submitted that she is not pressing the relief granted by the District Forum in paragraphs 18 (a) and 18 (b) but is only confining his arguments to the relief granted in paragraphs 18 (c) and 18 (d) in the order of the District Forum. Learned Counsel for M/s. Mehtab Computers argued that there cannot be said to be any deficiency in service on the part of the Computer Centre inasmuch as the result of the complainants had appeared on the website of the University on internet and was conveyed to the Computer Centre. The job of declaration of the result was that of the University and it was for the students to find out what the result was. The appellants were not required to forward any result to the students. When the detailed marks certificates were received by the Computer Centre the students including the complainants were informed to collect the detailed marks certificates which the complainants did not. During the proceedings before the District Forum the detailed marks certificates were handed over to the complainants/their Counsel. Even at that stage there was sufficient time to apply for revaluation as well as to sit in the reappear examination which opportunity the complainants did not avail as has been mentioned in the previous paragraphs of this judgment.

SO far as the University is concerned, their Counsel submitted that the result was declared on the website of the University on Internet which is to the knowledge of all the students. Detailed marks certificates were sent in due course to the Computer Centre and the Computer Centre did inform all the students, including the complainants, to collect detailed marks certificates. There cannot be said to be any deficiency in service on the part of the University. Learned Counsel for the University cited a judgment of the National Commission in Deputy Registrar (Colleges) and Another v. Ruchika Jain and Others, reported as III (2006) CPJ 343 (NC)=2007 (1) CPC 226. In this judgment, the question to be answered was framed as under:- "whether performance of statutory duties by a University or College in laying down criteria/rules/regulations for conducting examinations, eligibility criteria for permitting the student to appear in the examination or declaration of the results of a student who appeared in the examination and such other activities can be considered to be rendering of service for fees?"

While answering the aforesaid question it was held by the National Commission as under: "in our view, a student, who appears in the examination conducted by the University cannot be held to be a consumer as defined under Section 2 (1) (b) read with Section 2 (1) (e ). Such a person cannot hire or avail of the services of the University or the Board for consideration. On the contrary, he appears in the examination voluntarily for the purpose of getting degree or diploma and for evaluation of his merit with regard to his studies during the course of a year or years. The law on the subject is settled by the decisions of this Commission. "

It was also observed by the National Commission as under: "from the aforesaid discussion it is to be held that the university while conducting examination, decides the eligibility criteria of the students who appears in the examination, evaluation of the answer papers or re-checking of the marks awarded to the student is performing a statutory duty and is not rendering service on hire for a consideration of fees. "

While giving its conclusion the National Commission observed as under: "hence, we arrive at the conclusion that- (i) Performance of statutory duties by a University or College for laying down criteria/rules/regulations for conducting examinations, eligibility criteria for permitting the student to appear in the examination or declaration of the results of a student who appeared in the examination and such other activities cannot be considered to be hiring of service for fees. Those are statutory functions not depending upon the contract between the parties.

(ii) The services which are to be rendered on the basis of the statutory provisions by the University/educational institution cannot be construed as rendering of service for consideration in the form of fees. "

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the complainants argued that District Forum had arrived at correct conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties (now appellants) inasmuch as the result was never forwarded by the Computer Centre to the complainants nor the detailed marks certificates were given.

AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there is substance in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants. Firstly, there is no deficiency of service on the part of any of the appellants who were OPs before the District Forum. There was no duty cast on the Computer Centre or the University to send the result individually to the students when the same was declared in May 2005. No rules or regulations have been shown to us that each individual was to be told about his/her result. In this case, the result was declared on the internet. Some Universities declare the result by way of notification in the gazette. It is for students to check up their result either from the internet or the gazette as the case may be. When the detailed marks certificates were sent to the Computer Centre by the University the Computer Centre informed all the students, including the complainants, to collect the same but they failed to do so. In these circumstances, there cannot be said to be any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Otherwise also, we are of the opinion that in view of the judgment of the National Commission in Ruchika Jain''s case (supra) so far as the University is concerned the complainants cannot be said to be consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

FOR the foregoing reasons, we allow all these appeals i. e. First Appeal Nos. 1020 to 1023 and 1044 to 1047 of 2006; set aside the impugned orders of the District Forum dated 11. 7. 2006 and dismiss the complaints of the complainants. There will be no order as to costs. The amounts deposited by the appellants while filing the appeals may be remitted by the Registry to them by way of a crossed cheque/draft after 45 days. Orders were reserved on 10. 5. 2007. Be communicated to the parties. Ordered accordingly.