1. This Civil 1st Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.8.2008 passed by the District Judge, Bhaderwah in Civil Suit, titled as Farooq Ahmed Bhat v. State of J&K & another, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. Plaintiff-respondent no.1 herein filed a suit against the appellant-Board and respondent no.2-State as an indigent person before the learned District Judge, Bhaderwah, for awarding damages to the tune of rupees five lacs on the ground that due to the negligence of appellant and respondent no.2 in declaring his result, the precious time of plaintiff was spoiled which is unbearable and cannot be compensated because it has adversely affected and spoiled his career. Precisely the case of plaintiff-respondent no.1 before the trial court was that he appeared in 12th class bi-annual examination in 2001, but his result was not declared as his roll number was not recorded in the gazette for the fault of appellant-defendant no.2, constrained the plaintiff-respondent no.1 to issue notice and ultimately his result was declared on 15.4.2004 and he was declared successful, which reads as under : "In continuation/partial modification to this office result Notification No.01/HSP-II dated 21.11.2001 pertaining to the Hr. Sec. Part-II Examination Summer/Winter Zone/Oct-Nov. Session 2001. The result of the following candidate/s is/are declared mentioned as under: Sr.No. Roll No. Name of the candidates Result/Marks Obtained 1. 732963 Farooq Ahmed Batt S/o Ali Mohd. Batt R(CH & BI) GE 25 + 26 = 51 p (0) BI = 09 + 07. int. 09 Ext. 08 = 33 F(N)  CH = CN + CN,  Ubt. 11, Ext. 10 = 21 F(N) PH. 25 + 18 Int. 11, Ext. 09 = 63 P(O) Prev. R. No.711963/2000/Bi-annual CH. AB cancelled vide F.(Secy.FM/JD/B/2001 Dated 01.12.2001." The appellant-Board appeared and filed the written statement. The following issues came to be framed : "1. Whether the plaintiff who appeared in 12th class examination under Roll No.732963 in J&K Board of School Education Jammu in Bi-annual Session 2001 for Chemistry and Biology papers have suffered damages on account of negligent act for non-declaring his result by defendant no.2 till 15.4.2004. OPP 2. In case issue no.1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of damages the plaintiff is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether suit is within time period as prescribed under Limitation Act? OPP 4. OPP 2. In case issue no.1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of damages the plaintiff is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether suit is within time period as prescribed under Limitation Act? OPP 4. Whether suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, if so how and what is its effect? OPD2 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action in his favour, if so how? OPD2 6. Relief." 3. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined Ali Mohd., Ram Nath Sharma, an employee of appellant-Board, Altaf Hussain Butt, Abdul Rashid Wani son of Gh. Rasool Wani and Abdul Rashid son of Bashir Ahmad. The plaintiff also appeared in the witness box. 4. The appellant-Board examined Ram Nath Sharma, Assistant Secretary. Brief resume of plaintiff’s witnesses 5. All the witnesses have deposed that plaintiff-respondent no.1 appeared in 12th examination in the year 2001, but when result was declared his roll number was not reflected or shown in the gazette. 6. The plaintiff-respondent no.1 has deposed that he appeared in 12th class examination in the year 2001 under roll number 732963 in Chemistry and Biology subjects. Result was declared but neither his name nor roll number was recorded in the gazette. He approached the appellant-defendant for issuance of marks card, but of no use. He then approached the Secretary to appellant, who advised him to approach Sub Office Bhaderwah. He was dragged from pillar to post and post to pillar from 2001 till 2003 when he served a legal notice upon the appellant-defendant no.2. Ultimately vide notification (supra), the result of plaintiff-respondent no.1 was declared and he was declared successful. He has further deposed that those students who were reading with him have already completed their graduation since long and even some of them have got employment, but the appellant-Board has taken away the precious years of his career/life. He stated that he be awarded rupees 4 to 5 lacs as compensation and appellant-Board be saddled with the liability. 7. All the witnesses examined by the plaintiff-respondent no.1 have supported his case. 8. The lone witness examined by the appellant-Board has virtually supported the case of plaintiff-respondent no.1. He has failed to give any reason why the result of plaintiff-respondent no.1 was not declared or his roll number was not recorded in the gazette. 7. All the witnesses examined by the plaintiff-respondent no.1 have supported his case. 8. The lone witness examined by the appellant-Board has virtually supported the case of plaintiff-respondent no.1. He has failed to give any reason why the result of plaintiff-respondent no.1 was not declared or his roll number was not recorded in the gazette. However, he has stated that it was an error of computer. Issue No.1 9. The plaintiff has proved by leading evidence that appellant-Board has without any right or reason committed an error while declaring the result of 12th class bi-annual examination session 2001 and due to the negligence of appellant-Board the name of plaintiff-respondent no.1 was not recorded in the gazette, as a result of which his three precious years of life have been taken away and his batch mates have already completed the graduation and even some have got employment, whereas petitioner has been deprived due to the negligence of defendant-appellant. The findings returned by the trial court needs no interference and accordingly are upheld. 10. Onus of issues 4 and 5 was on appellant-defendant no.2 but it has failed to lead any evidence and accordingly failed to discharge the onus and rightly came to be decided in favour of plaintiff-respondent no.1. Issue no.3 11. Learned counsel for appellant-Board argued that the suit on the face of it was time barred. According to him the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff-respondent no.1 in the year 2001 and the suit was to be filed within two years as per the mandate of Article 36 of J&K Limitation Act, 1995. 12. The argument of learned counsel for appellant-Board is devoid of force for the following reasons: No doubt the result was declared in the year 2001, but neither the name of plaintiff nor his roll number was recorded in the gazette. There is ample evidence on the file indicating that the plaintiff approached the appellant-Board at Jammu and thereafter was advised to approach Sub Office at Bhaderwah, which he did. When he failed to get any redressal, he was constrained to serve a legal notice upon the appellant-Board. Ultimately in terms of that legal notice appellant-Board declared his result on 15.4.2004. Thus the cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff on 15.4.2004 when he came to know that he has qualified the 12th class examination. When he failed to get any redressal, he was constrained to serve a legal notice upon the appellant-Board. Ultimately in terms of that legal notice appellant-Board declared his result on 15.4.2004. Thus the cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff on 15.4.2004 when he came to know that he has qualified the 12th class examination. The suit came to be filed on 9.3.2005, therefore, the same is within time. The appellant-Board has failed to discharge the onus. Accordingly issue no.3 is decided in favour of plaintiff-respondent no.1 and against the appellant-Board. Issue no.2 13. Learned counsel for appellant-Board has argued that without any basis Rs.2,50,000/- came to be awarded as damages and prayed that the findings returned on issue no.2 be set aside. 14. The plaintiff in the plaint has claimed Rs.two lacs as damages, which he has suffered due to delay in declaration of result after a period of two years and five months, Rs.2,70,000/- as compensation under the heads mental stress and strain and Rs.30,000/- as expenses for visiting Jammu to Bhaderwah and Bhaderwah to Jammu. 15. Admittedly, plaintiff-respondent no.1 has lost 2 years and five months of his career due to negligence of appellant-Board. His classmates have made a march ahead, some of them have completed graduation and even some have got appointment, but the plaintiff-respondent no.1 has been deprived and is lacking behind due to the negligence of appellant-Board. Awarding lump-sum amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation/damages is nothing. Money cannot compensate two years and five months life of plaintiff-respondent no.1. Had his result been declared in time he would have made a march with his batch mates. If he would have got appointment against a IV Class post, he would have been earning rupees five to six thousand per month, or if he would have completed graduation in time, he would have gained status and that would have created a hope for him to receive higher education and to get a chance/opportunity for appointment against a higher post. But, because of negligence of appellant-Board, the life of plaintiff-respondent no.1 has been made miserable. So by guess work I am of the view that plaintiff-respondent no.1 was entitled to damages/compensation to the tune of rupees five lacs, but trial court has only awarded Rs.2.50 lacs, which the plaintiff has not questioned. Thus the findings returned and the compensation awarded by the trial court are upheld. 16. So by guess work I am of the view that plaintiff-respondent no.1 was entitled to damages/compensation to the tune of rupees five lacs, but trial court has only awarded Rs.2.50 lacs, which the plaintiff has not questioned. Thus the findings returned and the compensation awarded by the trial court are upheld. 16. Having glance of the above discussion, this appeal merits to be dismissed. Accordingly the same is dismissed. 17. Registry to prepare the decree sheet. Send down the record along with a copy of the order and decree sheet.