Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 145 (UTT)

RASTRIYA INTER COLLEGE v. SUNIL TYAGI

2009-04-01

IRSHAD HUSSAIN, KUSUM LATA SHARMA

body2009
ORDER (Per : Justice Irshad Hussain, President) : Appellant – Rastriya Inter College, was the opposite party No. 1 in consumer complaint No. 162/2006. Opposite Party No. 2 was the Secretary, Uttaranchal Education and Examination Parishad, Ram Nagar, District Nainital. District Forum, Haridwar vide order dated 03.09.2007, allowed the complaint with costs of Rs. 2,000/- and directed the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant within a month from the date of the order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had field in the intermediate examination form for the year 2004 as a private candidate from the appellant – college and the opted subjects, namely, Physics, Chemistry and Biology. He was issued incorrect admit card by showing subject Mathematics in place of opted subject Biology and, therefore, he could not appear in practical examination of Biology, although he appeared in practical examination of other subjects and in all the theoretical examinations in the year 2004 and whereas after one year, he was permitted to appear only in the Biology practical examination and was declared pass. By reason of loss of one academic year and on account of suffering mental agony and harassment, complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and filed consumer complaint for award of compensation, which was allowed as aforesaid by the District Forum. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and authorized representative of the complainant – respondent and have carefully perused the material on record and the written submissions made on behalf of the complainant. We have also considered the facts, circumstances and the legal aspects of the case and at the outset, it need to be stated that the complaint deserved to be allowed only against the Secretary, Uttaranchal Education and Examination Parishad and the appellant – college should not have been saddled with the responsibility to pay any compensation to the complainant. The reasons are that it is the Board, which has to ensure that correct admit card is issued to a candidate, so that he may appear in all the practical and theoretical examinations of the subjects, for which he has filled in his application form. In this case, it is not in dispute that incorrect admit card, by showing subject Mathematics instead of Biology, was issued and received by the complainant. In this case, it is not in dispute that incorrect admit card, by showing subject Mathematics instead of Biology, was issued and received by the complainant. On mistake pointed out and the representation being made, correct admit card was issued and received by the complainant on 18.0-3.2004 and by then, the practical examination of subject Biology, had already been conducted and the complainant could not appear in it in the year 2004, despite repeated request and efforts and intervention of the appellant – college as well as the Hon’ble Education Minister of the State, who had recommended that the practical examination of the said subject, need to be conducted in that year itself. The complainant, thus, has lost one of his precious year and has been able to complete his intermediate examination in the following year 2005, when he has been permitted to appear only in Biology practical examination and was declared pass. Learned counsel for the appellant persuasively argued that the complainant has been able to complete one year training course sponsored by ITI during that year and, thus, he has not lost any of his precious year by reason of the mistake and was, thus, not entitled to any compensation on the ground of deficiency in service of the opposite parties. We see no merit in the submission, for the simple reason that for ITI training programme, qualification less than intermediate is required and, therefore, the same can not be said to be a perfect substitute of the intermediate qualification, which could have been obtained by the complainant in the year 2004 itself, if the mistake in the admit card, was not to be made by the Board Complainant had legitimate expectation for better academic achievement after passing the intermediate examination in the year 2004, which he was not able to achieve on account of the above mistake and, therefore, merely obtaining ITI certificate, would not be taken to say that the complainant has not lost a precious year of his academic career due to the fault and mistake in the above manner. This apart, the complainant has also suffered mental agony and harassment by reason of his inability to appear in the Biology practical examination and he has to run from pillar to post, as is evident from the correspondence on record and despite this, could not succeed in having his Biology practical examination conducted in the year 2004 itself. Therefore, for that reason also, the complainant was entitled to be awarded compensation and in the totality of the circumstances of the case, we do not think that compensation of Rs. 20,000/-, assessed by the District Forum, was exorbitant and excessive. 4. The question, which arise in this case, is as to whether in the peculiar circumstances of the case, both the opposite parties including the appellant, were liable to be saddled with the responsibility to pay the compensation to the complainant. As stated above, it is the Board, which has to ensure that correct admit card is issued to a student and in the matter of issuing the correct admit card, the college has no role as such of its own. Therefore, the complainant has lost his one precious year and has suffered mental agony, by reason of the incorrect admit card issued by Uttaranchal Educatin and Examination Parishad and that alone, made deficiency in service and was liable to pay the compensation to the complainant and the District Forum fell in error in holding both the opposite parties, including the appellant, responsible to pay the compensation to the complainant. Therefore, the appeal of the college is fit to be allowed and the order against it, is liable to be set aside, so that only the Uttaranchal Education and Examination Parishad, remain liable to pay the compensation awarded by the District Forum per order dated 03.09.2007, to the complainant. 5. We may also mention here that the Uttaranchal Education and Examination Parishad – opposite party No. 2, has not filed any appeal against the impugned order and by virtue of the provision of Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the order passed by the District Forum, has also become final against it. 6. In so far as the argument that the consumer complaint was not maintainable against the statutory body is concerned, we would like to mention that education institution or the Education and Examination Parishad, conduct examination on payment of fee. 6. In so far as the argument that the consumer complaint was not maintainable against the statutory body is concerned, we would like to mention that education institution or the Education and Examination Parishad, conduct examination on payment of fee. In other words, they are not rendering service free of cost and the service by the student/examinee, is hired for consideration and, therefore, the consumer complaint filed by the complainant, was maintainable in this case. The decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Ranchi University and another Vs. Nuzmat Sultana and others; IV (2008) CPJ 149 (NC) as well as in the case of Punjab School Education Board Vs. Naresh Rani and others; IV (2006) CPJ 224 (NC), may be advantageously referred in that regard. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal succeed and the order impugned against the appellant, is liable to be set aside. 8. Appeal is allowed. Order impugned darted 03.09.2007 of the District Forum, in so far as against the appellant, is set aside and the appellant is absolved from paying any amount to the complainant and the amount of compensation, awarded by the District Forum, shall be paid by Uttaranchal Education and Examination Parishad to the complainant. No order as to costs.