REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) BANGALORE UNIVERSITY vs PARIDA ANSARI

THIS appeal, by the opposite party, is directed against the order dated 20.10.1992, passed by the District Forum, Bangalore, in Complaint No. 2984/1992 granting compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: 1. The complainant, the mother of IInd year B.Sc, student, Farhan Ansari, filed the complaint seeking the following reliefs: "To order the University to declare her son''s result before 28th or at the earliest. In doing so, son will be helping a mother who is going through frustration when she reads disappoint -ment on her son''s face everyday."

THE complainant averred that her son, Farhan Ansari, appeared for B.Sc, 2nd year examination in April, 1991 and his result of examination was declared as failed in Chemistry subject. THE complainant applied for revaluation in respect of that paper and after revaluation, her son Farhan Ansari, was declared as passed in that paper. THE results of revaluation were declared on 3.1.1992. In the meanwhile, the complainant''s son took up the supplementary examination held in the month of October, 1991. Her son was also declared "passed" in the supplementary examination in Chemistry paper in the month of January, 1992. The complainant, on the basis of these averments, sought reliefs as narrated above.

The opposite party filed its objection. It would be better to refer the objection statement in full, filed by the opposite party: "Parawise replies in respect of complaint No. BDF:COM:2984/91 made to the Bangalore District Forum, Bangalore: Para-1 of the petition - The student had applied for revaluation in Chemistry paper of II B.Sc, Examination held in April 1991. Paras - II & IV - His paper was revalued. The candidate has passed in Chemistry paper II in revaluation. The marks Card bearing SI. No. 13834 has already been sent to the College on 3.1.92."

THE District Forum, on consideration of the material so placed on record, held that the complainant established deficiency in service rendered by the opposite party and in that view awarded compensation to the complainant in a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. We have called for the records and received. We have also heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the complainant the mother of the student.

THE learned Counsel for the opposite party relying on the decision in University of Ajmer v. Hanuman Dutt & Another, reported in Appeal No. 10/ 1990 decided on 23.3.1990 by the Rajasthan Commission, submitted that the services rendered by the University in imparting education cannot be classified as service within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. We are not in agreement with the view taken by the Rajasthan Commission in the aforesaid case. The Gujrath State Commission in Oza Nirav Kanubhai v. Centre Head, Appele Industries Ltd., and others, reported in Volume II (1992) CPJ 706; the Haryana State Commission in A. PJ. School v. K.L. Galhotra reported in Volume II (1992) CPJ 807, Haryana State Commission in Tilak Raj v. Haryana School Education Board, reported in Vol. I (1992) CPJ 76: Maharashtra State Commission in Abel Pacheco Gracior. v. Principal, Bharathi VidyaPeeth, reported in I (1992) CPJ 105 and this Commission in M. Sukesh v. Official-in-charge "Dak Adalat" reported in Volume II (1992) CPJ 933, have taken the view that student is a "consumer" and imparting of education for consideration is a "service" within the meaning of the Act. The University collects examinations fees from the students. This fee is towards conducting the examinations, valuation of the answer scripts and publishing the results and awarding the degree/diploma. These are, in our opinion, the services for which the University collects the examination fees. A student or his guardian is entitled to approach the Consumer Forums, if there is deficiency in rendering any of the above services.

SO the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant has no substance.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant, nextly averred that there were no proper averments in the complaint regarding awarding of compensation and so the compensation awarded was bad in law. We are herein considering the grievances made by an aged mother of a student. Such a claimant is not expected to put the grievances under any particular legal formula. What all that she had stated in the complaint was that even though an application for revaluation was given in the month of July and required fee for it was also paid, but the revaluation results were not declared and his son was made to take up the supplementary examination. Under the circumstances, her son and herself were undergoing a great frustration and disappointment. This is a very unfortunate case and it deserves to be approached as an intensely human problem rather from a purely legalistic angle.

The complainant filed the complaint on 11.11.1991. The complainant''s son took up the supplementary examination at the end of Nov. 1991 and the results of supplementary examinations were declared in the first week of Jan. 1992 and at the same time i.e., on 3.1.1992, the revaluation results were declared as passed.

THE complainant and her son when they were present before the Commission for the hearing on 28.5.1992 have specifically prayed for awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony suffered by them. The learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the complainant did not place on record any material to a ward huge compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,000/-and so the compensation awarded is bad in law.

THE complainant, though has not claimed compensation in a specific term in the complaint, but she has expressed her and her son''s agony and frustration aid claimed compensation. While the complainant was at the time of hearing before the District Forum, had expressed her grievances which the District Forum, has referred in its order, thus: "It is seen from the photostat copy of the I year B.Sc. Degree Examination, viz., Ex.P-2 that that student had passed in 1st class. For such a student to be told that he had failed in the papers at the 2nd year and the opposite party taking unduly long time to attend to the revaluation of the paper sought for by him and declared him as passed after he had to study again and appear for the supplementary examination, it is obvious that not only that student but also his parents had to undergo lot of mental agony. THE complainant told us that it was only on 3.1.92 the result of the revaluation was communicated to him. THErefore, we find that this is a fit case where the opposite party should be directed to pay sufficient compensation to the complainant and we find that the sum of Rs. 5,000/- sought for by the complainant is on the lower side."

In cases like, the present complaint, we cannot take a narrow and technical view on the question of awarding and quantification of the compensation. In Smt. Kailash Kumari v. Narendra Electronics, reported in Volume-II (1991) CPJ Page 279, the National Commission has held as under : "Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sec. 14(1)(d) - Compensation - Complainant purchased a colour T.V. Set - Found defective - Thus complaint - Claimed replacement of it and Rs. 2,500/- as compensation - District Forum ordered for replacement and awarded Rs. 2,500/- as compensation - State Commission reduced the compensation to Rs. 500/- hence revision - Whether it is right to insist that aggrieved party should adduce more concrete and specific evidence regarding convenience, expense and mental suffering on account of defective T.V.? (No) - It is the duty of the Forum to assess and determine what amount should be awarded as compensation."

SO, in our opinion, the District Forum, has considered the material and has seen the complainant and her son expressing their agony and grievance and quantified the compensation and held it is just and proper to award compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,000/-.

HAVING regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the finding recorded by the District Forum, Bangalore. ORDER In the result, therefore, this appeal fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs. Appeal dismissed. ______________