REGISTRAR vs MRS. PUJA PRAVIN WAGH

THIS is an appeal filed by the University of Pune against the order passed by the District Forum, Dhule in Complaint No. 3/96. The University has been directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant, who happened to be the student for M.A. examination - Entire Politics. The University has vehemently stated that the District Forum fell in serious error in condonation of delay beyond the 2 years in regard to the complaint filed by the complainant student - Ms. Puja Wagh, and secondly the District Forum has wrongly interpreted the procedure of holding examination and declaring results by the University as a consumer service. As against this, the opposite party No. 1/complainant has urged that she wasted about 2 years in getting her results and thus suffered immense loss in her carrier prospects. Her entire future came to be postponed by a period of 2 years and such a loss cannot be compensated by any amount but all the same she claimed Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony, harassment, Rs. 50,000/- for expenses and further amount of Rs. 3,000/- in all she claimed Rs. 1,03,000/- with interest at 18%. The District Forum, on elaborate consideration of all the pros and cons of the case of both of the complainant and the opposite parties and was pleased to grant the award of Rs. 25,000/-.

THE few facts, which need to be reproduced, are that the complainant, Mrs. Wagh was the student of opposite party No. 2, S.S.V.P.S. Arts and Commerce College, Dhule. She had a bright career and at the graduation level, she had secured first class. She appeared in the M.A. - Entire Politics examination in the year 1988 held by the present appellant, University of Pune. For that purpose, she had paid fees viz. examination fees, and had appeared for the examination. In the month of May, 1988 she was declared failed but she persued her efforts by repeatedly appearing for the examination till May, 1993. In the month of May, 1991, she appeared for the Entire Politics examination vide Seat No. 12691 but her result was declared as failed. After appearing for the examination in May, 1993, she came to know that she had passed the examination in 1991. But due to the deficiency in the service of both of the College and University, she was required to appear for subsequent examinations upto May, 1993. In May, 1993, she enquired with the opposite parties at that time, the College by its letter dated 1.9.1993 being letter No. 354/ 1993-94 informed the complainant that the complainant had passed her M.A. examination in May, 1991, vide Seat No. 12691. THE complainant, therefore, asked for statement of marks and the University issued a statement of marks to the complainant on 1.10.1993. THE complainant has alleged that she was declared passed in her revised result but the result came late as in 1993, whereas, her relevant examination was conducted in 1991, Had the correct result been communicated, the complainant would not have suffered for a period of 2 years in her career. THE complainant, therefore, alleged deficiency in service against both the opposite parties i.e. appellant and respondent No. 2. Regarding the delay between 1.10.1993 and 12.1.1996, the complainant has contended that she resides at a long distance from Dhule and had, therefore, authorised her father to appear in the complaint and the delay should be condoned. The appellant, University, filed affidavit of one Shri K.B. Khilari, Section Officer, Examination Department of the appellant. The college did not file written statement but later on filed the affidavit of the Principal Shri R.S. Sonawane. According to the University, the result was communicated under Outward No. 690 on 14.2.1992. The said result for M.A. Exam. was declared on 27.9.1991. The said result was forwarded to the college on the above date i.e. 14.2.1992. It was the duty of the complainant to collect the marks from the college. There was an error in marks on account of computer mistake but the respondent is not responsible for that defect in computer. It is further contended that this is not a case, where the University is rendered any service for consideration as contemplated in the Consumer Protection Act and on these two grounds, the complaint should be dismissed. The College, through Principal, contended that the college intimated to the complainant long after her complaint dated 1.9.1993 because of the delay by University. There was, therefore, no deficiency of service on the part of the college.

The learned Advocate for the appellant has urged that the complaint was clearly time barred. We find a lot of substance in this regard because the complainant admits that she positively came to know the results under the written communication by the college on 1.10.1993. But because of her pregnancy, she was under medical treatment, she could not file the complaint within limitation. But the period of two years expired on 1.10.1995. There was thus the delay of 3 months. Now relying on all these aspects, we feel that there was no justification on the part of the District Forum to condone the delay on the ground that the complainant was pregnant and that her father filed the complaint'' late. In the first instance the duration of first two years for not filing the complaint is not at all reasonably explained by the complainant. The pregnancy does completely immobilise the woman from persuading her daily chores. Again, there were male persons to look after her and in that contest, we hold that the delay is not sufficiently explained. We are unable to agree with the District Forum that for the grounds stated in the complaint, and the affidavit, the delay should be condoned. The period of two years is not such a small period that should liable the complainant from approaching the District Forum and file the complaint. We, therefore, find that the complaint was filed beyond the limitation and the delay of 3 months is not properly explained.

THE District Forum has relied on several judgments of Delhi Commission and Haryana Commission but we are afraid that the ratio of the decisions by these Commissions really does not reflect on the true nature of the dispute. Now, here is the case, where the student paid examination fees, appeared for the examination and obtained the result possibly late. THE National Commission in the case of Registrar, University of Bombay v. Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, reported in I (1994) CPJ 146 (NC) has observed that the University while valuing the answer papers or undertaking the re-valuation of answer papers or the re-checking of marks is not performing ''service'' which had been hired or availed of for consideration. THEre is no consumer dispute. THE National Commission, in the case of Chairman of Board of Examination, Madras v. Mr. Abdul Kader reported in 1986-96 CON.C 1911 (NS) has observed that conducting Secondary School Board Examination, evaluation of answer books, announcing the results thereof and thereafter conducting the re-checking of the mark of any candidate on application made by the concerned candidate, the Board is not performing any ''service'' for hire. Now, these are the two settled cases, where the National Commission has held that holding examination and declaring result does not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. We, are, therefore, unable to accede to the views of the District Forum and accordingly pass the following order. ORDER THE appeal is allowed. THE Order of the District Forum is set aside. THE original complaint is dismissed. Appeal allowed.