JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. In this case we cannot but see the agony, anguish and travails of a differently abled student with 60% locomotor disability and spastic cerebral palsy in obtaining the results of his examination of the 2nd year of the B.A. Course, which he wrote in the year 2006under the Calicut University. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the University of Calicut challenging the judgment and decree of the Court of the Sub-Judge, Palakkad in O.S.No.792 of 2011, by which the court granted to the plaintiff, the student referred to above, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) along with interest, as damages for the unexplained inordinate delay caused by the University in publishing the results. The University has challenged the judgment and decree primarily on the contention that the delay which was occasioned, which is virtually admitted, was not for their fault, but that which is solely attributable to the fourth respondent, the Principal of the College, which was the examination centre of the plaintiff. 3. We have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University, Sri. P.C. Sasidharan. 4. Most of the facts presented in this case are admitted. The fact that the plaintiff, who has been arrayed as the first respondent herein, is a differently abled student with 60% locomotor disability and spastic cerebral palsy is not disputed. The fact that he was a student of Bachelor of Arts in the Victoria College Palakkad, of which the 3rd respondent is the Principal, is also admitted. The fact that there was inordinate delay in publication of the results of the plaintiff is admitted, albeit with an excuse as above. 5. The genesis of the controversy is that, even though the plaintiff/the first respondent herein appeared for the 2nd year B.A. Examinations in all subjects in May, 2006 with the help of a scribe, when the results were published, his mark sheet showed that he was absent in the Hindi-II language paper. On noticing this, the plaintiff's father immediately took up the matter with the Principal of the College, the 3rd respondent who advised him to approach the University. On noticing this, the plaintiff's father immediately took up the matter with the Principal of the College, the 3rd respondent who advised him to approach the University. When enquiries are made by the plaintiff and his father with the University, they were told that the plaintiff had not appeared for the examination in the Hindi-II language paper, even though they produced before the University the hall ticket and other documents to show that he did take the examination with the help of a scribe. It appears that, the University, after quite some delay, issued a letter to the 3rd respondent, the Principal of the College, enquiring about the whereabouts of the answer sheet, to which a reply was caused by him that the answer sheets in question had already been despatched to the University at the relevant time. When the results were not published in spite of all these efforts, the plaintiff filed W.P.(C).No.2850 of 2007 before this Court, in which an interim order was passed directing the University to publish the results of the examination. It appears that, consequent to the said direction, the University published the results declaring the plaintiff to have passed the examination. This Court thereafter closed the writ petition directing the University to issue the degree certificate and also reserving liberty with the plaintiff to approach a court of competent jurisdiction to claim damages, if he was so advised. 6. During the time this litigation was pending, we notice that plaintiff has completed his course leading to a degree in Bachelor of Arts. However, it is indubitable that because of the delay in issuing the mark list with respect to one paper of the second year, he had not obtained the fruits of the degree and he was made to wait indefinitely. Since the plaintiff legitimately felt aggrieved, he initially filed a petition before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (CDRF) claiming a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- which was allowed. However, this order was challenged by the University before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the Commission'), which, by order dated 25.6.2011, allowed the appeal however not on the finding that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages but concluding that the CDRF did not have jurisdiction to entertain such disputes. This order of the Commission has been placed on record as Ext.A29. 7. This order of the Commission has been placed on record as Ext.A29. 7. Faced with the above situation, the plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit and as we have already said above, the court below has issued a judgment and decree allowing an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakhs) as compensation as claimed by him. It is this judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Palakkad that has been assailed by the University before us. 8. We see that the court below took the suit to trial and that on the part of the plaintiff/ first respondent herein, he himself was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A30 documents we reproduced and marked. On the side of the appellants and the other defendants, Exts. B1 to B8 were marked and two witnesses namely, DW1 and DW2 were examined. The court below, after a detailed assessment and analysis of the pleadings on record, the materials available and the evidence let in, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has made out a case and therefore, decreed the suit as prayed for. 9. We have examined the decree and judgment called into question before us. As we have already said above, the factual disputes between the parties are not very many. The University admits that the plaintiff, who was a differently abled student had taken the examination of the 2nd year B.A., but contended that the papers with respect to the Hindi-II language paper had not been sent by the 3rd respondent, namely the Principal of the College, to the University in time. According to them, as per the procedure adopted by the University, the answer sheets are to be collected by the Examination Superintendent and sent over to the University in sealed cover. Once such papers reach the section of the University, they are then allotted fake roll numbers and then sent for evaluation so as to hide the identity of the student. The singular assertion of the University is that the answer paper of the plaintiff, even though was supposed to have been sent in a packet containing the answer sheets of another visually impaired student, had not reached the University. 10. The 3rd respondent, the principal of the College-examined himself as DW2 and testified in terms of the written statement filed on his behalf. 10. The 3rd respondent, the principal of the College-examined himself as DW2 and testified in terms of the written statement filed on his behalf. He deposed specifically that there was no delay in sending the papers of the plaintiff to the University and that the papers were despatched by him immediately as is required under the applicable instructions. DW2 further went on to depose that the answer scripts of the examinations conducted on 30.01.2006 were collected by the Officials of the University and that his office has received the acknowledgment indicating the receipt of the same by the University. He vehemently asserted in his testimony that the University had received and that they were in possession of the answer scripts bearing code No. C-16100 to 16094, which included the answer sheet of the plaintiff also. It is particularly relevant that these answer scripts, referred to by DW2, were those of differently abled students which were enclosed in separate packets and sent to the University. DW2 specifically contended that the University had not raised any allegation to the effect that the answer script of the plaintiff had not been received and that he had never been notified by them of the answer scripts being so missing. 11. Even though several contentions have been raised by the University, everything in effect, distills down to one and that is that the papers were not sent to them by the 3rd respondent Principal. According to them, they are not responsible for the delay, the delay being virtually admitted, and that such delay will have to be solely attributed to the Principal. We have examined this contention quite in detail. This contention is virtually in the nature of third party indemnification. If, as has been contended by the University, the Principal was at fault in not sending the papers in time, we fail to understand why they did not invoke the procedure available to them under Order VIII A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the provisions of this Order, where a defendant claims to be entitled to contribution or indemnity from any person, who is not even a party to the suit, he shall be entitled to have the leave of the court to bring such party on record and to claim such compensation or indemnification from such party. Under the provisions of this Order, where a defendant claims to be entitled to contribution or indemnity from any person, who is not even a party to the suit, he shall be entitled to have the leave of the court to bring such party on record and to claim such compensation or indemnification from such party. In this case, what is relevant is that the 3rd respondent was already on the party array and it would have required only an application by the University to invoke the procedure under Order VIII A against him. This has not been done. In the absence of any such attempt to even initiate a proceeding under Order VIII A, we fail to understand how the learned counsel for the appellant can today raise a contention, that the Principal ought to have found fault with. This is particularly because, the evidence of DW2, which we have examined in detail, would indicate that the answer sheets have been sent to the University well within time and also that no complaint has been raised regarding the scripts until such time as an interim order was passed by this Court in W.P.(C).No.28504 of 2007. It is only on the interim order being issued by this Court that the University appear to have woke up from its deep slumber and to have taken steps to locate the paper sand then to have it valued. The fact that the papers were valued by the University within a period of a week to ten days after the interim order would clearly show, without any doubt at all, that the papers were available with them and that their contention that the papers had not been forwarded to them by the Superintendent of the Examination Centre is only a method of creating a defence against the liability that was inevitable on them. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant now made another attempt to save the appeal by a contention based on Exts.B3 and B6 documents by alleging that the description of the plaintiff in the said paper was not accurate. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant now made another attempt to save the appeal by a contention based on Exts.B3 and B6 documents by alleging that the description of the plaintiff in the said paper was not accurate. We see that the court below has considered this specifically in paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment and it was found that this contention is merely an afterthought because, admittedly, no such dispute had been raised when the University and the Officials of the University received the papers and statements from the examination centre. We do not, therefore, think that this submission would warrant any merit at this point and we therefore, repel the same. As we have already said above, the fact that the papers were already valued by the University and the conceded fact that the papers were not sent by the 3rd respondent Principal at any time after the orders of this Court in the writ petition would clearly fortify our conclusions that the papers were available with the University but were not valued in time. 13. We also see from the pleadings in the appeal that there is a contention that a suit of this nature is not maintainable. Even though we do not see this contention having been pursued by the University seriously before the court below, we deem it essential to answer it against the appellants relying on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in University of Kerala v. Sandhya P.Pai 1991 (1) KLT 812 . The observations of their lordships in the said judgment, made in respect of the duties of the University and their liability under the civil law to compensate for detriment caused to the candidates, are voiced in paragraph 16 of the judgment which is felicitous in its reading and, therefore, extracted for ready reference: “16. It is unnecessary in this case to launch on a discussion about the origin, growth and flourishing of the great Universities from early times. Nor it is necessary eve to sketch their position in modern India. An effort was made in India, in early days, “to raise the standard of higher education”. The first five Universities of Calcutta, Madras, Bombay, Lahore, and Allahabad under took instructions and supervision as well as examination. Nor it is necessary eve to sketch their position in modern India. An effort was made in India, in early days, “to raise the standard of higher education”. The first five Universities of Calcutta, Madras, Bombay, Lahore, and Allahabad under took instructions and supervision as well as examination. The Senates of the Universities of the early days took in “High Court Judges, Bishops, members of Executive councils, the Provincial Directors of Public Instruction and Professors of Government and missionary colleges. (See “The New Spirit in India”, by Henry W. Nevinson, pages 4 & 5). It is not without reason that a University is thought about as “a place of light, of liberty and of learning.” (See The Governance of England, by Sioney Low, page 146). Time was when the University and its academic bodies had received the greatest of respect from courts. (See University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 S.C 491 ).The large number of cases in which the courts have been forced to interfere even in matters of academic character, is a sad but striking feature of the current functioning of many of the Universities. The disinclination of a court to disturb the normal functioning of these institutions of learning, cannot dissuade the court from meting out justice to a student who had suffered much. In our administration setup, the University is a constitutional instrumentality and the State coming within Article 14 of the Constitution. It cannot act arbitrarily, unfairly or unreasonably. A citizen injured by a neglect on the part of such a statutory instrumentality would be entitled to be indemnified in respect of damages sustained by it. Old notions about cases where no duty of care was found to be owed by a University (as in Thorne v. University of London, (1966)2Q.B.237 and Sammy v. Birkbeck College, The Times, may 20, 1965) cannot then be invoked to disown liability of the University. (No such attempt was made in the present case. The two decisions were not relied on by the University. It is also doubtful whether the summary of the legal position on this aspect as given by Charlesworth on Negligence 7th Edition, para 2-13a, page 31, is very precise.) In the present case, there is a positive representation by the University under Ext.B2 of its obligation in supplying the revalued marks within a normal period of 45 days. It is also doubtful whether the summary of the legal position on this aspect as given by Charlesworth on Negligence 7th Edition, para 2-13a, page 31, is very precise.) In the present case, there is a positive representation by the University under Ext.B2 of its obligation in supplying the revalued marks within a normal period of 45 days. That is yet another ground for distinguishing cases in which no such representation had been made to the student community.” 14. As is perspicuous for the extract above, their lordships went on to lay the principle that when there is negligence on the part of the University in the discharge of its duties, any injury arising from established negligence will necessarily have to be compensated by the University itself. Of course, we also notice that a contention has been raised before us that the obligation to pay damages, if any, is on the 3rd respondent, the Principal of the examination centre, but not on the University. This contention would not require any further examination on our side, because we find that no negligence has been proved against the 3rd respondent, but that the papers were always in the custody of the University and therefore, they themselves are solely responsible to cause reparation and indemnification for the loss caused to the plaintiff. 15. Even assuming, ex arguendo, that the Principal was in any manner at fault, we do not think even then that the University can absolve themselves from their responsibility of making payment of the compensation, because, when the Principal acts as the Superintendent of the examination centre, he acts under the command and control of the University as an Examination Official and therefore, even when an Official is at fault, causing injury to a candidate, the primary responsibility of making the compensation will rest upon the University. But, of course, since the impugned decree grants liberty to the University to recover the compensation decreed from the erring officials, it would be within their authority to find out whether the Principal was at fault and to seekappropriate contribution from him, after the decree is satisfied by payment to the plaintiff. 16. But, of course, since the impugned decree grants liberty to the University to recover the compensation decreed from the erring officials, it would be within their authority to find out whether the Principal was at fault and to seekappropriate contribution from him, after the decree is satisfied by payment to the plaintiff. 16. Now, on the question of the quantum of compensation, we see that the court below has only awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which has been split up into three heads: (a) Rs.25,000/- has been ordered as liquidated damages which represents the amount expended by the plaintiff for conducting the litigation and such other incidental expenses; (b) Rs.50,000/- as damages for the loss of career opportunity for a period of three years and finally, © Rs.25,000/- as damages for the mental agony and pain caused on account of this delay. The learned counsel for the appellant vociferously submits that the amounts awarded by the court below is excessive and he pleads that the same may be reduced. We, however, find no cause or reason to even doubt that the amounts awarded is excessive in any manner at all. On the contrary, we think that it is a justified and reasonable amount awarded by the court as compensation for damages, because the injury caused to the plaintiff is such, which generally cannot be computed in terms of money. We say this because, the plaintiff was a young man and already burdened by certain extenuating circumstances in life, being differently abled, trying to make a life of his own by obtaining a degree and higher education. This was severely impeded by the University in not completing the evaluation of his answer sheet and publishing the mark list for over three years. The delay caused is certainly not capable of definite computation in terms of monetary value, but, while called upon to assess the quantum of damages in such cases, the courts are bound to make assessment by legally sustainable process of estimation as to the amount but ensuing it to be not unreasonable or capricious 17. In this case, the amount awarded is only Rs.1,00,000/- of which Rs. 25,000/- represents the actual amounts spend by the plaintiff in pursuing the litigation. In this case, the amount awarded is only Rs.1,00,000/- of which Rs. 25,000/- represents the actual amounts spend by the plaintiff in pursuing the litigation. We do not think that the balance amount of Rs.75,000/- awarded towards compensation for his mental agony and towards reparation for the impairment of his career prospects can be found to be unreasonable at all. We are of the view that the amount awarded is reasonable and we find no favour, therefore, to interfere with any of the findings of the court below. 18. In any event of the matter, we do not see why the University should be concerned about the judgment and decree because we find from it that they have been given the liberty of recovering the entire amounts from the officials found culpable. Obviously, the University will have to make an enquiry as to who are the erring officials and fix responsibility to facilitate recovery in terms of the decree. In that view of the matter also, we find no justification for the University to feel aggrieved by the judgment and decree so as to assail in an appeal like this. In such circumstances and summation of what we have stated above, we dismiss this appeal but since we have not issued notice to the plaintiff, we make no order as to costs.