H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.

---



FIRST APPEAL NO.472/2007

DATE OF DECISION: 21.4.2009.

In the matter of:



Brijesh Singh son of Shri Chotta Ram, resident of Village Tarar, P.O. Chandpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P.

… …. Appellant.



Versus



1. The Coordinator Indira Gandhi National Open University, S/C-1113, Government College, Bilaspur, H.P.

2. The Director (S.R. and E) National Open University, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi.

… … Respondents.



Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member.



Whether approved for reporting? Yes



For the appellant: Ms Neelam Kaplas, Advocate,

Vice Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate.



For the Respondent: Mr. R.S. Gauttam, Advocate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



O R D E R



Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President (Oral).



1. Complaint No.4/2006 was filed by the appellant before the District Forum below. His claim briefly stated was that he joined D.T.S. (Diploma in Tourism Studies) Course, of Indira Gandhi National Open University during 2001 and was enrolled for D.T.S. programme cycle Ist Session 2001 commencing from Ist January, 2001. He had joined the Study Centre of Indira Gandhi National Open University, hereinafter referred to as “IGNOU”, at Government Post Graduate Degree College at Bilaspur.



2. At the time of hearing, it was not disputed on behalf of the parties that the appellant had reappeared in one paper of Tourism Study 2 (TS3). He appeared in June, 2002 and result was declared in December, 2002. It was further not in dispute that Project report is a part of Tourism studies and in case proposal is given before examination then it dates back to the clearance of the examination. In this behalf the stand of the respondents was that till the project report is submitted result was not to be declared.



3. Thus the entire dispute revolves around the controversy as to when project report was submitted by the appellant. It may be worthwhile to mention here that M.A. No.659/2008 was filed by the appellant for placing on the record additional evidence. This application was allowed vide order of the date passed in the said application and thereby letter No.IG/SRE/ExAM-B/2000/8468 dated 17.4.2008 from IGNOU to the appellant was ordered to be brought on record. It reads as under:-



“To

DTS-010364091

Brijesh Singh

Village-Tarer

PO-Chandpur

Tehsil & Dist-Bilaspur-174004

H.P.

Sub: Declaration of result for Project report – reg.



Dear Student,



This reference to your quarry. As per record, the project report was received at Head quarters on 23/12/2002 and the result has been declared accordingly.



Yours sincerely

Sd/-

Asstt. Regstrar (Exam-V)”



4. The above extracted letter was not disputed on behalf of the respondents. Thus, it is evident that as late as on 17.4.2008 it was confirmed by the respondents that the project report was received at headquarters on 23.12.2002 and the result was declared accordingly. This was followed by diploma in Tourism Studies, statement of marks. It is dated 29.7.2004. It pertained to Term-End Exam. December-2003.



5. From the narration of the above facts based on contemporaneous official record of the respondents it is evident that the project report had been submitted by the appellant as far back as on 23.12.2002.



6. What should be reasonable time within which the respondents should have declared the result. We specifically asked Mr. R.S. Gautam to explain to us. Per him, 6 months time is enough for his client to declare the result provided all formalities including submission of project report is completed as per rules and regulations of the respondent-University in that behalf. We very much appreciate the stand of Mr. Gautam, learned Counsel for the respondents. Thus according to us, the result of the appellant should have been declared by the respondents by or before 30.6.2003 whereas it was admittedly declared as late as on 11.5.2005. This was followed by marks sheet referred to hereinabove. Therefore, from the narration of the above facts, it is manifestly clear that the respondents were not only negligent, but deficient too in rendering service and this resulted in wastage of more than two years of the appellant.



7. Faced with this situation, Mr. Gautam referred to a decision of the National Commission in the case of Chairman, Board of Examination, Madras Versus Mohideen Abdul Kader, II (1997) CPJ 49 (NC) and urged that there was no hiring of service involved in this case, as such he prayed for upholding the impugned order and consequently dismissing the appeal. He further submitted that besides this decision of the National Commission, the National Commission has also held that University does not render ‘service’ within the meaning of Section 2 (1) ((o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. And in this behalf he again referred to the decision of the National Commission in Deputy Registrar (Colleges) & Anr. Versus Ruchika Jain & Ors., Revision Petition No.1121 of 2005, decided on 7.7.2006. This decision in our opinion does not advance the case of the respondents. It is totally based on its own facts. Because the controversy in this case before the National Commission and in the appeal before us are totally different on facts. In the present appeal question is whether a University can withhold the declaration of result of a candidate having received project report and a candidate having successfully completed the academic session and thereafter also having appeared in examination, can his results be arbitrarily withheld. At the risk of repetition, it may be proper to mention here that in view of the letter dated 17.4.2008, respondents have confirmed that project report was received at headquarters on 23.12.2002. What the University was doing thereafter?. Mr. Gautam had no answer. Identical question of delayed supply of mark sheet came up before the National Commission in the case of Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Versus Sasmita Moharana, III (2007) CPJ 154 , whereby the National Commission while dismissing the appeal of the Board of Secondary Education and another, uphold the compensation awarded by the State Commission on the ground of respondent not getting the admission in College for want of mark sheet in time, held the Board liable for negligence.



8. In this behalf we are of the view that if the submission urged by Mr. Gautam is taken to its logical end, its result would be disastrous and it would give a free hand to the respondents to withhold result of any one it likes without any justifiable cause, as well as rhyme or reason. Thus, career of students like appellant would be in jeopardy. In the present case two valuable years of the appellant have been wasted because of the acts of omission, commission, remissness as well as negligence on the part of the respondents. In these circumstances, his case is squarely covered by the decision of the National Commission in the case of Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Versus Sasmita Moharana(supra). Once this conclusion is arrived at, then the decision of this case need not detain us.



9. Now the question arises as to what should be the quantum of compensation. More than two years of the appellant have been wasted due to aforesaid acts of the respondents without any justification. In these circumstances, it is felt that interest of justice will be well served if appeal is allowed, impugned order set aside and consequently while allowing the complaint, compensation in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum is awarded from the date of complaint i.e. 27.6.2005 till the date of deposit/payment whichever is earlier, alongwith Rs.5,000/- as cost of this appeal as well as in complaint filed by the appellant out of which this appeal has arisen. Ordered accordingly.



10. No other point was urged.



In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed and as a result of it order of the District Forum below in Consumer Complaint No.4/2006, dated 19.9.2007, is hereby quashed and set aside and consequently while allowing the complaint, respondents are directed to pay Rs.40,000/- to the appellant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 27.6.2005 together with Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation of this appeal as well as of the complaint. Appeal is disposed of in these terms.



Learned Counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect authenticated copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary in accordance with Rules.

Shimla,

April 21, 2009.

( Justice Arun Kumar Goel ) (Retd.)

President



( Chander Shekhar Sharma )

/BS/ Member.