PUNJAB UNIVERSITY vs RAM CHANDER

-CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order dated 9. 1. 2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant direction has been given to the appellant-opposite party to issue DMC to the complainant through a special messenger or through courier and to ensure the delivery of the DMC within 15 days of the receipt. The opposite party was further directed to pay Rs. 2,000 as compensation to the complainant and Rs. 1,000 as litigation expenses.

PUT shortly, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is employed as Additional Ahlmad in Judicial Department Sessions Division, Sirsa. In order to improve his educational qualifications with prior permission of the authorities submitted form for M. A. Part-I, English exam to be held by the Punjab University, Chandigarh in the month of May-June, 2001. He also submitted demand draft bearing No. 516158 dated 24. 1. 2001 for Rs. 700 issued by the State Bank of India, Mandi Dabwali Branch along with the examination form. It is the case of the complainant that he had passed B. A. Examination with Roll No. 41218 and his result was declared by the University on 15. 1. 2001 and for that reason there was no delay on his part in submitting the examination form. The said form was received by the University in the last week of January, 2001. In the second half of May, 2001 he received a letter No. 23278/ma-I/eng. /2k dated 18. 5. 2001 whereby he was informed that a sum of Rs. 2,010 was outstanding against him as late fee. The complainant informed the University that he had sent the examination form within the stipulated period from the declaration of the result. In response to his letter the opposite party as per letter dated 27. 6. 2001 informed the complainant that the late fee demanded was not recoverable and thereafter withdrew the demand as per letter dated 27. 6. 2001. At the same time a sum of Rs. 135 was demanded from him as special fee. The stand of the complainant is that as he is resident of Village Danger Khera, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozpur (Pb.), th special fee was not chargeable from him but still he made the payment. Thereafter, the roll number for the said examination was not sent to him. During this period the examination date for M. A.-I had passed. Under these circumstances it was complained that due to the negligence and lapse on the part of the opposite party, his one precious year of studies had been wasted and on that account he was entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 and Rs. 50,000 on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him and as such in all he was entitled to receive Rs. 2,50,000 from the opposite party along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of realization. The complaint was contested by the opposite party. In the written statement filed a preliminary objection was raised that the complainant is not a consumer as the dispute raised by him, related to the conduct of examination by the opposite party. On merits it was stated that the complainant had submitted his examination form along with the fee of Rs. 700, as stated in the complaint, for appearing in subject of M. A. Part-I English examination to be held in April, 2001 as a private candidate. It was further stated that examination form Sr. No. 460 submitted by the complainant was totally incomplete lacking material information on the basis of which eligibility of the complainant for issue of roll number for the examination in question could not be determined. It was specifically pleaded that in the middle of the form the complainant did not supply any information regarding the studies of B. A.-I, II and III. Instead he merely mentioned in the column of B. A. III," Result declared on 15 Jan. 2000, DMC certificate not received as yet. Therefore, Notification No. 13 dated 15. 1. 2000 attached". In this manner he left everything on hypothetical presumption that the opposite party will automatically determine the eligibility of the complainant on the basis of submission of the form as noticed above. It was further stated that in relation of B. A.-III, the result was declared by the opposite party on 15. 1. 2000. It was further stated that the opposite party after noticing the incomplete examination form as noticed above, had written letter No. 23278/ritu dated 23. 2. 2001 requiring the complainant to supply the information as under: " (i) Quote the correct roll number, name of examination, year and session of the examination in which you appeared last. (ii) Submit certificate of B. A. I, IInd and IIIrd year Exam. in Original. "

However, the complainant did not response to the said letter and for want of necessary information he was not eligible to appear in M. A.-I English examination. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. Despite the above stated specific stand taken by the opposite party the District Forum without going into the question raised accepted the complaint by recording the following conclusion in para No. 8 of the order: "from all corner we observe the University employee was not working carefully. They know this fact that DMC has not been received by the complainant till today. In view of the fact that the O. Ps. failed to deliver the DMC to the complainant the O. Ps. committed the gross negligence. Further the plea rised by the complainant that the memo No. B. A. /b. Bsc. (General) III year Exam September 2000 the O. Ps. may allow to the candidate to appear in M. A. classes on provisional basis and in this way the academic year can be saved whereas the O. Ps. raised the demand of Rs. 2,010 as balance fee of M. A.-I. After receiving the legal notice from the complainant, the O. Ps. corrected irregularities on a very later stage. On the other hand the complainant successfully proved his version. He applied for M. A.-I classes after taking due permission from the Judicial Deptt. Due to negligence and deficiency OPs. spoil the precious academic year of the complainant. Accordingly, while commencing on the question of compensation under Section 14 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act), the O. Ps. are directed to issue DMC to the complainant through a special messenger or through courier and to ensure the receipt against delivery of DMC within 15 days. Obviously, the Forum did not interrupt the educational system but in this complaint we observe that there is total miscarriage of justice. Under these compelling circumstances while commencing on the point of compensation the O. Ps. are directed to pay Rs. 2,000 to the complainant and to pay Rs. 1,000 towards litigation charges under Section 14 (1) (d) of the Act. "

Aggrieved by the above stated findings the appellant-opposite party has come up in appeal.

Authorised representative on behalf of the appellant-opposite party as well as the learned Counsel representing the respondent-complainant have been heard at length.

AT the threshold of arguments representative on behalf of the appellant-opposite party pointedly urged that the District Forum had ignored the factual position with regard to entertainment of the complaint as the dispute raised by the complainant related to the eligibility relating to M. A.-I examination and, therefore, in respect of the statutory duty to be performed by the opposite party relating to conducting the examination, the District Forum was required to reject the complaint. On the other hand learned Counsel representing the respondent-complainant has justified the order for the reasons stated therein. In support of the stand taken reliance was placed by him on the cases noticed hereinafter: In case of Chairman, Board of Examinations, Madras v. Mohideen Abdul Kader, II (1997) CPJ 49 (NC), it was observed that, "what this Commission has held in the earlier cases is that a University or Board in conducting public examination, evaluating answer papers, announcing the results thereof and thereafter conducting re-checking of the marks of any candidate on the application made by the concerned candidate is not performing any service for hire and there is no agreement of hiring of any service involved in such a situation as contemplated by Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act. A candidate who appears for examination cannot be regarded as a person who had hired or availed of the services of the University or Board for consideration". In case Controller of Exam. , Himachal Pradesh University and Anr. v. Sanjay Kumar, I (2003) CPJ 273 (NC) and Ex-Sub. Sachida Nand Sharma v. Chairman, CBSE, I (2003) CPJ 251 (NC), it was stated that educational institutions do not render service while holding examination and in concomitant omission cannot be construed as deficiency. The order of the State Commission dismissing the complaint was upheld. Same position was also discussed in Praveen Rani v. Punjab School Education Board, III (2004) CPJ 70 (NC) and Registrar, Rajasthan University v. Manish Srivastava, II (2004) CPJ 787. In Deputy Registrar (Colleges), and Anr. v. Ruchika Jain and Ors. , III (2006) CPJ 343 (NC), the position of law has been settled by the Hon''ble National Commission in this regard. It has been observed in para 28 (i) of the judgment, "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 of declaration of the result 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. 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 fee. " Further reference was made to the unreported decision of Appeal No. 1057 of 2006 titled as Punjab University v. Satraj Singh, decided on 22. 2. 2007 wherein while placing reliance on the observations made in Deputy Registrar (Colleges) and Anr. v. Ruchika Jain and Ors. , III (2006) CPJ 343 (NC)=2007 (1) CPC 226, the State Commission, Punjab observed as under: "the issuance of Roll No. , on completion of certain formalities, according to us, is a statutory duty to be performed by the University as per the rules and regulations of the University. In these circumstances, as held by the National Commission in Ruchika Jain''s case (supra), the services which are to be rendered on the basis of statutory provisions by the University/educational institution cannot be construed as rendering of service for consideration realized in the form of fees. According to us, the aforesaid judgment would come in the way of the complainant to seek his remedy as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act as the University cannot be construed as rendering service for consideration in the form of fee. This, however, will not leave the complainant remediless. He can certainly file a civil suit or file a writ petition (if it lies) for claiming the relief as claimed in the present complaint. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and hold that the complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. At the behest of repetition, we may observe that this will not come in the way of complainant to seek any other remedy in accordance with law. No costs. "

Therefore, in the face of above stated position of law in this case definitely the dispute raised by the opposite parties relating to the eligibility of the complainant to take part in M. A.-I English Examination as a private candidate, because according to that the complainant had not submitted the complete details of B. A. III Examination as required under the regulations of the University and thereafter on verification his ineligibility was established on two counts. Firstly, that he had not obtained in aggregate 50% marks and secondly he had not taken English as Elective Subject. Therefore, the opposite party was fully justified in not issuing roll number. The District Forum was duty bound to take into account the above stated legal position of law and for that reason the complaint being not entertain able was required to be dismissed.

EVEN on merits, the complainant has no case because he was not eligible to take M. A.-I English examination as noticed above. The District Forum has issued the directions in relation to the D. M. C. relating to B. A. III examination which was not the dispute raised by the complainant in the complaint, rather, he based his claim on the ground that his one year had been lost on account of action of the opposite party in denying him opportunity to take M. A.-I examination. Moreover, it is admitted on record that D. M. C. for B. A. III has already been released to the complainant. Thus, the District Forum has committed illegality in accepting the complaint and for that reason the order of the District Forum, as such, cannot be sustained. For the aforesaid reasons, while accepting the appeal the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. Appeal allowed.