ORDER Per: Mr. C.C. Pant, Member): These two appeals arise out of the order dated 17.12.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, in consumer complaint No. 355 of 2012, whereby the District Forum has partly allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony suffered by him and Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of litigation within a month from the date of the order, failing which the opposite party has also been held liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the above amount from the date of filing the consumer complaint till payment. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Shri Mantosh Kumar, a resident of Kailash Nagar Colony, Chas, District Bokaro, Jharkhand, took admission in B.Ed. Special Education (Visual Impairment) programme run by National Institute for the Visually Handicapped (for short “Institute”) – opposite party for the academic year 2011-12. After completion of the session, the Institute did not conduct the examination. When the complainant enquired about it, he came to know that the Institute was not granted affiliation by Uttarakhand Technical University (for short “UTU”). The complainant has also stated in his complaint that after completion of the course, he was allowed to appear in the entrance test for M.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) programme for the academic year 2012-13. He secured 73 marks in the said test including interview and stood 14th in the rank in merit list. The complainant has alleged that the candidates securing less marks, in comparison of him, were admitted in the said course, but he could not get admission, because he could not submit his marks sheet of B.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) by that time. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, partly allowed the consumer complaint vide its order dated 17.12.2012 and directed the opposite party – Institute, as stated above. Aggrieved by the said order, the Institute has filed First Appeal No. 14 of 2013, while not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to the complainant by the District Forum, the complainant has filed First Appeal No. 01 of 2013 for enhancement. Aggrieved by the said order, the Institute has filed First Appeal No. 14 of 2013, while not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to the complainant by the District Forum, the complainant has filed First Appeal No. 01 of 2013 for enhancement. As both the appeals arise out of the same order, these are being disposed of by this common order. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 4. The learned counsel for the Institute, appellant in First Appeal No. 14 of 2013 and respondent in First Appeal No. 01 of 2013, argued that the impugned order is based on incorrect facts. The learned counsel pointed out to para No. 3 of page No. 2 of the impugned order, wherein the District Forum has stated that U.T.U. had granted affiliation to the Institute for B.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) course for the first time for academic session 2011-12. The learned counsel said that the affiliation was granted for the academic session 2010-11 for the first time which 30.06.2011 and the Institute had applied for extension of the affiliation well in time after getting approval for the said course from Rehabilitation Council of India (for short “R.C.I.”). Though there was some delay in getting the affiliation from U.T.U., but the affiliation was ultimately granted for the academic years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. The complainant has been awarded the degree of B.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) by U.T.U. and, therefore, the allegation made by the complainant against the Institute that the Institute was not affiliated to U.T.U. and his future had become dark, is totally false. So far as the allegation in respect of admission in M.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that there were 15 seats for this course. The complainant had 12th rank among the candidates of General Category in the merit list prepared on the basis of the entrance test. Out of these 15 seats, there were only 7 seats for the General Category candidates. So, as per the merit list, the complainant had no chance of getting admission in the M.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) course. The learned counsel also submitted that some delay in getting the affiliation had occurred due to some unavoidable circumstances, which have been explained by the Institute in the written statement submitted before the District Forum. So, as per the merit list, the complainant had no chance of getting admission in the M.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) course. The learned counsel also submitted that some delay in getting the affiliation had occurred due to some unavoidable circumstances, which have been explained by the Institute in the written statement submitted before the District Forum. The complainant has not suffered any loss because he has been awarded a duly recognized degree. The District Forum has failed to appreciate these facts of the case and, thus, the impugned order suffers from gross factual and legal infirmity and is liable to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant, appellant in First Appeal No. 01 of 2013 and respondent in First Appeal No. 14 of 2013, countering the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the Institute submitted that it is a clear case of misrepresentation. He submitted that the entrance test for the said course was conducted on 28.08.2011 and on that date, the Institute was not affiliated to U.T.U. The candidates, including the complainant, who appeared in the entrance test, were kept in dark in this regard, because in the Prospectus-cum-Application Form, the Institute had shown itself affiliated to U.T.U. The complainant was admitted to the said course, which started on 20.09.2011, but when the complainant and other students felt that the examinations were not being conducted even after completion of the course, they enquired about it. The enquiry made by the complainant revealed that till the date of filing the consumer complaint, the Institute was not affiliated to U.T.U. and that is why, U.T.U. had not conducted the examination. The learned counsel also submitted that though the Institute was not affiliated to U.T.U., the Institute started admission procedure for B.Ed. & M.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) programme for the academic year 2012-13 claiming itself affiliated to U.T.U. The complainant, believing on what was printed in the Prospectuscum- Application Form, purchased the form for entrance test for M.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) programme and appeared in the test. He secured 73 marks in the test including interview. However, he could not get the admission, because it was necessary to produce the marks sheet of B.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) examination at the time of admission. Because the examination was not conducted, the complainant had no mark-sheet by that time. Special Education (V.I.) programme and appeared in the test. He secured 73 marks in the test including interview. However, he could not get the admission, because it was necessary to produce the marks sheet of B.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) examination at the time of admission. Because the examination was not conducted, the complainant had no mark-sheet by that time. Thus, the complainant could not pursue his higher studies and he wasted his one year’s time because of the negligence and misrepresentation made by the Institute. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital vs. Bhupesh Khurana & Others; I (2009) CPJ 25 (SC)”, the compensation awarded by the District Forum is not adequate and, therefore, he prayed that the complainant be awarded adequate compensation and the impugned order be modified accordingly. 6. We considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. So far as the first argument placed by the learned counsel for the Institute is concerned, it appears to be just a typographical error, because at all other places, the District Forum has mentioned the fact that the said course was started for the first time from the academic year 2010-11 and the Institute was affiliated to U.T.U. So it cannot be termed as a gross factual error and the impugned order cannot be set aside merely on this count. However, truth is that the Institute was not affiliated to U.T.U. for the academic session 2011-12, on the date the admission procedure for B.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) programme was started by the Institute for the academic session 2011-12, but the candidates, who appeared in the entrance test, were under the impression that the Institute was affiliated to U.T.U., because the Institute had mentioned so in the Prospectus-cum- Application Form. So, it is certainly a case of misrepresentation. Instead of claiming itself as affiliated to U.T.U. on that date, the Institute should have clarified in the Prospectus that it was affiliated to U.T.U. for the academic session 2010-11 and had applied for its extension for the academic session 2011-12. Such a clarification would have helped the candidates to take a decision whether to apply or not for the said course. Such a clarification would have helped the candidates to take a decision whether to apply or not for the said course. As is apparent from the record, such courses are run by only two or three Institutes in the country and, thus, candidates from all corners of the country come for studies in these centers. The complainant has also come from District Bokaro (Jharkhand) with a future plan in his mind that after completing the said course, he would pursue for M.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) programme, but his dream was shattered when he felt that he was not eligible for admission to post graduate course for want of mark-sheet of B.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) examination. The students were kept in dark throughout the academic session with regard to Institute’s affiliation. The Institute, keeping the candidates in dark and showing itself in its prospectus as affiliated to U.T.U., conducted entrance test for M.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) programmes. So, it is a proven case of misrepresentation on the part of the Institute and the District Forum has not erred by allowing the consumer complaint. 7. The learned counsel for the Institute has also argued that though the final examination got delayed, but the complainant has not suffered any loss because the Institute was ultimately affiliated for the academic session 2011-12 and examinations were conducted by U.T.U. The delay in affiliation was due to some unavoidable circumstances. The Institute had started the process for renewal of affiliation for the academic session 2011- 12 on 03.02.2011. On 11.07.2011, R.C.I. approved the course for the academic session 2011-12. Immediately after receiving the letter of approval on 20.07.2011, the Institute applied on 21.07.2011 to U.T.U. for extension of affiliation for the academic session 2011-12. The U.T.U. recommended to the State Government for the extension of affiliation vide its letter dated 05.01.2012. The State Government granted affiliation for the academic session 2011-12 vide its letter dated 07.09.2012 and then the U.T.U. started the process for final examinations. Explaining the delay caused at the level of U.T.U. and State Government, the Institute, which was the opposite party before the District Forum has stated in its written statement filed before the District Forum that the application sent to U.T.U. by the Institute for extension of affiliation remained pending because U.T.U. had shifted its office to its own premises and also because of the death of its Registrar. At the level of the State Government, it took unusually a longer time in granting extension of affiliation mainly because of the Assembly Elections, which were held on 30.01.2012 and the new Government had taken over the charge on 13.03.2012 and also because of the fact that the then Governor Smt. Margaret Alva had proceeded on long leave. Subsequently, a new Governor was appointed, who took over the charge of the office of Governor on 15.05.2012. The new Governor had also proceeded on a tour of the entire State immediately after taking over the charge. For these reasons, the State Government could issue the letter for extension of affiliation on 07.09.2012. This explanation itself shows that the Institute did not pursue the matter with true spirit. After applying to R.C.I. on 03.02.2011 for approval of the course for the academic session 2011-12, the matter remained pending upto 11.07.2011and the Institute has failed to produce any evidence that it had pursued the matter through reminders. Again the matter remained pending at the level of U.T.U. from 21.07.2011 to 05.01.2012 and the Institute did not send any reminder to the University. The events like shifting of the U.T.U. office, death of an official etc. are not sufficient to explain a delay of more than five months in sending recommendation to the State Government. At the level of the State Government, if the explanation given by the Institute is believed, it appears that the functioning of the State Government had come to a stand still for about seven months. If that was so, it was certainly most unfortunate for the whole State. The Institute has again failed to justify itself that it had always been pursuing the matter by sending reminders to the U.T.U. and the State Government. In nut-shell, we can say that the Institute was not much concerned with the future of the students who had come from far off places of the country and the administration / management of the Institute was not sensitive to realize the commotions that were going on in the minds of the students. The circumstances of this case clearly indicate the mental agony suffered by the complainant and, therefore, the District Forum has taken a just view in this case. 8. We have also noted that the complainant is visually handicapped and a certificate of 90% disability is available on record. The circumstances of this case clearly indicate the mental agony suffered by the complainant and, therefore, the District Forum has taken a just view in this case. 8. We have also noted that the complainant is visually handicapped and a certificate of 90% disability is available on record. Even then, the way he has pursued this matter is commendable inspite of facing various odds. The record reveals that it was he, who enquired about the reasons for delay in examination, collected various informations and made representations to various authorities. Though some other students have also signed the representation, but the complainant’s role appears to be a leading role. For this reason, it somehow appears to us that the administration/management got annoyed with him. The marks awarded to the complainant in interview of the entrance test of M.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) programme are somewhat astonishing. The complainant had secured 72% marks in the written test, which is third highest among all the candidates and highest among the visually handicapped/blind candidates. In interview, he has been awarded only 1 mark. We have also noticed that some other candidates, who had signed the representation, have also been awarded very poor marks in the interview. For example, Aruna Xaxa (ST/Blind), Sh. Gajender Kumar Yadav (BC/Blind), Sh. Virendra Kumar Shah (BC/Blind), who had signed the representation, have been awarded only 1 mark. Other students, like Sh. Abhishek Chauhan (GC), Sh. Gyan Chandra Kalar (BC/Blind), Mohd. Samim Akhtar (GC/ Blind), Sh. Nishant Pal (BC), who had also signed the representation, have been awarded very poor marks in interview. If the Institute was aware of the fact that the final examination would be conducted only after getting the extension of affiliation and it would not be possible for these students to procure the mark-sheet of B.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) programme by the time of admission, then the Institute should have clarified to them this peculiar situation that had arisen for the academic session 2011-12. Instead, the Institute sold the prospectus, collected its cost, conducted the entrance test, took interview of short listed candidates and ultimately denied admission to those who did not possess mark-sheet of B.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) programme. 9. Instead, the Institute sold the prospectus, collected its cost, conducted the entrance test, took interview of short listed candidates and ultimately denied admission to those who did not possess mark-sheet of B.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) programme. 9. The learned counsel for the Institute has pressed into service the following decisions in support of the arguments advanced by him with regard to allegations made by the complainant against the Institute for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. (i) E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. & Ors. vs. Vellore Anjappa Mudaliar & Anr.; I (1995) CPJ 162 (NC) (ii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Thiruvalluvar Silk Cotton Industries; III (1995) CPJ 82 (NC) (iii) Deputy Registrar (Colleges) & Anr. vs. Ruchika Jain & Ors.; III (2006) CPJ 343 (NC) 10. We went through these judgments. While the facts of the cases pertaining to “E.I.D Parry (India) Ltd.” and “National Insurance Co. Ltd.” are quite different and ratio of these judgments is not applicable to the instant case. The judgment at Sl. No. (iii) rather than helping the Institute, appears to be more supportive to the complainant. In this case, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the student appearing in examination conducted by the University is not a consumer, as defined under Section 2(1)(d). The University, while conducting the examination, decides criteria of eligibility, evaluates answer papers etc. and is performing its statutory duty. The University is not rendering any service on hire for consideration of fee. In the instant case, the complainant has not made any allegation against the U.T.U. with regard to criteria of eligibility, evaluation of answer sheets etc. The allegation is against the Institute that it failed to look after the interest of the students and could not get timely affiliation to U.T.U. and that resulted in delay in conducting the examination. In the above cited case, the Hon’ble National Commission has also held that the dispute regarding validity or illegality, irregularity committed by institution in giving admission is covered under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is based on consideration (fees) for rendering education and hence student is a consumer. In the instant case, the dispute is similar. The Institute admitted the student in the B.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) programme without having valid affiliation to U.T.U. and this fact was concealed from the students throughout the academic session. It is based on consideration (fees) for rendering education and hence student is a consumer. In the instant case, the dispute is similar. The Institute admitted the student in the B.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) programme without having valid affiliation to U.T.U. and this fact was concealed from the students throughout the academic session. It was only when the complainant enquired about the status of affiliation, it came into light that the Institute has falsely mentioned in the Prospectus that the Institute was affiliated to U.T.U. for the said course. So the decision cited by the learned counsel for the Institute helps the complainant to prove that he was a consumer of the Institute and had a right to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum. 11. Learned counsel for the complainant has also referred a judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of “Saheed Bhagat Singh Public School & Ors. vs. Anoop Singh; III (2012) CPJ 643 (NC). In this case, the School was not affiliated to C.B.S.E., but it was shown on the board of the school that it was affiliated to C.B.S.E. The Hon’ble National Commission held that it was a false representation and unfair trade practice. 12. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, there are no such guidelines laid down by the superior courts in their judgments, as to what should be the adequate compensation in such matters. In this regard, we are of the view that adequacy of compensation should be commensurable with the consideration paid by the consumer for hiring the services. 13. In the instant case, the complainant had paid Rs. 11,400/- to the Institute for B.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) programme. He had also purchased the Prospectus for M.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) programme. Keeping in view all these expenses, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the District Forum along with interest @ 9% per annum is adequate and just. Generally, the average rate of interest that is awarded by the District Forum in such cases is 7% per annum, but we would not like to reduce it, because the case was contested by a person who is visually handicapped. However, the District Forum has awarded a cost of Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of litigation, which is not sufficient, particularly when the case is being contested by a visually handicapped person. However, the District Forum has awarded a cost of Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of litigation, which is not sufficient, particularly when the case is being contested by a visually handicapped person. In many cases, we have noticed that the District Forum has awarded Rs. 5,000/- or even Rs. 10,000/- towards the cost of litigation, but in this case an award of Rs. 1,000/- appears to be quite unreasonable. In our view, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- would be just and proper in this case. To this extent, the impugned order is modifiable. 14. Accordingly, the First Appeal No. 14 of 2013 is dismissed and First Appeal No. 01 of 2013 is partly allowed. The order impugned dated 17.12.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun is modified to the extent that the cost of litigation is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. Rest of the order is confirmed. 15. Cost of the appeals shall be borne by the parties on their own. Let the copy of this order be placed in the file of First Appeal No. 14 of 2013.