National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Alex J. Rebello vs Vice Chancellor, Bangalore University ... on 30 December, 2002
Equivalent citations: II(2003)CPJ7(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum where his complaint was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable which order was affirmed by the State Commission on an appeal filed before it by the petitioner, hence this revision petition.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant's son was a student of Engineering College in Bangalore where after the writing of papers for the IIIrd Year, the University did not declare the result of the child on the grounds that he was absent. On representation for scrutiny he was awarded 7 and 8 marks respectively in the papers of Transmission Distribution and HV Lab. Technology and 'Pulse and Digital' Circuits. When revaluation was sought, the reply from the respondent was that there was no change in the marks. The prayers in the complaint was that opposite party be directed to transmit the answer sheets in respect of the above mentioned two papers so that District Forum could verify the correctness of the marks given, if need be, the papers be evaluated by foreign Professors and in the case of any lapse on the part of the respondent, award a compensation of Rs. 30,000/-. The complainant had made the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar personally responsible for this deficiency. The District Forum vide its order dated 21.8.1991 decided to proceed against the Registrar only. After hearing the parties the District Forum dismissed the complaint as not being maintainable in the light of principles laid down by the National Commission that the complainant in such cases do not hire the services of the respondent. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission met the same fate on the same grounds. This revision petition was filed by the, petitioner before this Commission on 16.10.1997 which was found to be defective on the ground that only one copy of the material/documents was filed. The petitioner/complainant appeared in person on the date of hearing i.e. on 11.12.2002. The said defects even now were not removed. Since, the petitioner is a senior citizen and had come all the way from Bangalore, we went ahead with the proceedings and heard him. The petitioner had come prepared with the written arguments, which were also taken on record.
3. It is his case, that this fact cannot be denied that in the first instance result of his son was not declared as being absent but when after running around, the result was declared, the child was given 7 and 8 marks in two papers. While in similar circumstances the same District Forum awarded Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant, his complaint was dismissed as not being maintainable. He had specifically made allegation against the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar so that awarded money could be recovered from them as laid down by the Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta. The District Forum erred in deleting the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor from the array of respondents. According to him, he is a consumer as he had hired the services of the University, when examination fee of Rs. 81/- were collected from him and again When Rs. 200/- were collected from him for revaluation, result of which was not supplied within a reasonable time. The petition needs to be allowed and now he should be awarded compensation of Rs. 1.5 lakhs and cost of Rs. 20,000/-. There is only one point before us for determination whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of its definition in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In F.A. No. 245 of 1992, Registrar, Evaluation, University of Karnataka v. Poornima G. Bhadari and Ors., this Commission held:
"In the light of the decisions already rendered by us in Joint Secretary, Gujarat Secondary Education Board v. B. Nithakkar, dated the 29th September, 1995 and in some other similar cases decided earlier wherein we have consistently taken the view that a University while valuing the answer papers or undertaking the revaluation of answer papers or the re-checking of marks awarded to a candidate at the instance of a candidate who had appeared for the examination is not performing a service, which had been hired or availed of for consideration and that no consumer dispute can, therefore, be paid to arise when a complaint made by the concerned candidate that the valuation, revaluation or re-checking had not been properly done, the order of the State Commission granting relief to such a candidate is clearly contrary to the rulings of this Commission and it has necessarily to be set aside."
4. Again in Registrar, Universty of Bombay v. Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, Bombay, I (1994) CPJ 146 (NC), we had held :
"We are clearly of the view that in carrying out its function of conducting the examination, evaluating answer papers and publishing the results of candidates the University was not performing any service for consideration and a candidate who appeared for the examination cannot be regarded as a person who had hired or availed of the service of the University for consideration. The complainant was not therefore, a consumer entitled to seek any relief under the Consumer Protection Act."
5. In the light of the above citation, we are unable to accept the argument advanced by the petitioner that he is a consumer.
6. We are also in full agreement with both the lower Fora where they have held that the question of recovery from individuals, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, shall only arise, if the complainant is found to be a consumer and deficiency stands proved. No such situation present before us in this case.
7. In the light of the above, we find no ground to interfere in the well-reasoned order of the State Commission and uphold the orders passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission. This petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.