Ranchi University vs NUZMAT SULTANA

-CHALLENGE in this revision petition is to the order of Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 27. 6. 2003 in appeal No. 124/2003 which had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

THE facts of the case in brief are that the complainant Nuzmat Sultana appeared in all papers of three years B. A. , Part II Examination held during the period from 21. 11. 1992 to 5. 12. 1992. Though, the result was to be announced in the month of September, 1993, her result was not published and she was shown absent in all the papers. Accordingly, she has filed a complaint before the Controller of Examination, Ranchi University along with supporting documents relating the attendance sheet etc. As she lost her academic year due to non-publication of result, she filed a complaint before the District Forum, University Authorities have admitted that not only the complainant had appeared in the said examination and also passed the same and result has communicated by the Principal of the concerned college on 14. 12. 2002. After considering the record of the case, the District Forum held that there is a deficiency in the part of the University and directed them to pay a compensation of Rs. 10, 000 on account of mental agony within 60 days failing which this amount shall carry interest @ 10% p. a. till the date of realization. Dissatisfied by the order of the District Forum, University has filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission declined to interfere in the impugned order after hearing the parties and going through the material on record. Hence, this revision petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner made submissions only on the law point that student appearing for a University examination is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. 1986. In this case, it is crystal clear that the student has appeared for the examination in the year 1992; the result was published only in the year 2002. Such abnormal delay has to be construed a deficiency in service.

THE word "service" has been defined in Section 2 (o) of Consumer Protection Act as follows: "service" means service on any description which is made available to potential (users and includes, but not limited to the provision of) facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, (housing construction), entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news of other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service. Similarly, the word "deficiency" has been defined in Section 2 (g) is as follows: "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.

UNIVERSITY has been included in the definition of an industry according to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors. , AIR 1978 SC 548 at page 583, wherein it was held that: "in the case of the University or an educational institution, the nature of activity is, exhypothesis, education which is a service to the community. Ergo, the University is an industry"

The education institution charges fees for imparting education and University also charges fees for conducting examination, therefore, they are not rendering service free of cost. The complainant had hired the services of the revision petitioner for consideration so she is a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. The University is expected to declare the result of examination held within a reasonable period of time and if that happens there is no deficiency in service but if it declares the result after 10 years then definitely there is a deficiency in service. In this case, the complainant had appeared in B. A. (P) examination which was held between 22. 11. 1992 and 5. 12. 1992 but her result was not published till December 2002. Accordingly, we have no hesitation to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the University. Our view is fortified by the recent decision of this Commission in Guru Nanak Dev University v. Angrej Lal, IV (2008) CPJ 172 (NC)=2008 CTJ 857 (CP) (NCDRC ).

MOREOVER, the District Forum has awarded a meagre compensation of Rs. 10,000 to the respondent/complainant on account of mental agony for loosing her academic year which was confirmed by the State Commission.

ACCORDINGLY, we dismiss the revision petition being devoid of merits. Petitioner shall also pay a cost of Rs. 5,000 to the respondent. Revision Petition dismissed.