UNIVERSITY OF AGRL. SCIENCES vs MAHANT PRASAD B.PATTANSHETY

THIS appeal, by the opposite parties, is directed against the order dated 31.3.93, passed by the District Forum, Dharwad, in Complaint No. 257/92-93, directing the opposite parties the University of Agricultural Sciences, to refund a sum of Rs. 12/- a calender fee to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 100/- as compensation to the complainant. The facts, briefly stated are as follows: 1. The complainant, a Ph.D., student, Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, Dharwad, made a complaint alleging that he had obtained a calender, that is, academic information and regulations in the year 1991-92 by making payment of a sum of Rs. 12/- to the opposite party. The said calender supplied on obtaining the sum of Rs. 12/- was printed in the year 1988, but it did not furnish the further and subsequent amendments and changes made in the regulations, so by supplying a calender, which was printed in the year 1988, in the year 1991-92, the University committed a deficiency of service and so he sought refund of the said sum of Rs. 12/- so collected from the complainant and from other complainants.

THE opposite party filed its version and averred that the calender was printed in the year 1988, but there were very few subsequent amendments and changes and those amendments and changes were notified in the library of the University and also on the notice board, as fresh printing of the calender every year involves heavy expenditure and as there were very minor changes, so there was no deficiency of service on the part of the University. On the basis of these averments, the opposite party sought the complaint to be dismissed. During enquiry, the complainant filed his affidavit and got Ex. P-l and P-2 marked in evidence and the opposite party filed the affidavit of Sri. A.S. Prabhakar, Registrar, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad and got Ex. D-l to D-27 marked in evidence.

The District Forum, appreciating this material placed on record, held deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in not printing a fresh calender incorporating all the changes and the amendments upto date and that view awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 100/- to the complainant and it also directed the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs. 12/- to the complainant.

WE have called for the records and received. WE have perused the material placed on record. WE have also heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The respondent had remained absent. It is not disputed that the calender that was supplied to the complainant in the year 1991-92 was printed in the year 1988. But it did not contain all the subsequent amendments and changes made up-to-date.

THE complainant had sought compensation for all the students and he averred in his affidavit that he had filed the complaint in the interest of student-community and on their behalf. THE District Forum has rightly rejected this claim of compensation made for and on behalf of the students of the University by the complainant. The complainant except stating that he made the payment of Rs. 12/- and obtained a calender in the year 1991-92 which was printed in the year 1988 and it did not contain up-to-date changes and amendments made in the calender; the complainant has not shown as to how he did sustain any loss or injury on account of supply of such a calender. The Provisions of Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, require that the complainant has to prove the loss or injury sustained by him due to negligence of the opposite party to claim or to obtain compensation from the opposite party. In the present case, admittedly the complainant did neither aver in the complaint nor did show in the affidavit filed by him that he did sustain any loss or injury due to supply of such a calender. The District Forum, has at para 6 of its order, observed, thus: "....As the full and up-to-date information about his education was not contained in the calender Ex.P-2 we have to presume that, complainant was put to much inconvenience and hardship, and for that, he has to be compensated."

This observation of the District Forum is clearly erroneous and unsustainable. The loss or injury alleged to have been sustained by the complainant has to be established by the complainant. It cannot be presumed without any material on record. So we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to establish any loss or injury suffered by him due to the negligence of the opposite party by supplying him such a calender which was printed in the year 1988. Having regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought for by him.

THE District Forum was not justified in awarding compensation and in directing to refund of the calender money collected by the University. So the order of the District Forum, is clearly erroneous and unsustainable. ORDER In the result, therefore, this appeal is allowed and the order dated 31.3.1993, recorded by the District Forum, Dharwad in Complaint No. 257/92-93 is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. THE parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs in this appeal. Appeal allowed.