Haryana

StateCommission

CC/678/2017

SHWETA - Complainant(s)

Versus

KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA - Opp.Party(s)

AMITABH SURI

27 Mar 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Complaint No.       678 of 2017

Date of Institution:  31.10.2017

Date of Decision:    27.03.2018

 

1.      Ms. Shweta (deceased) D/o Shri Anant Ram Goel, resident of House No.46, Sector 12A, Panchkula, through her legal representative/heir Master Dev (son of deceased), aged about 10 years.

 

2.      Ms. Shweta (deceased) D/o Shri Anant Ram Goel, resident of House No.46, Sector 12A, Panchkula, through her legal representative/heir Shri Anant Ram Goel, aged 69 years son of late Shri Patram Dass (father of deceased).

 

…..Complainants

 

Versus

 

1.      Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, through its Vice Chancellor.

 

2.      The Registrar, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.

 

3.      The State of Haryana, through the Additional Chief Secretary (Higher Education), Haryana.  

 

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

                      

 

Present:     Shri Amitabh Suri, Advocate for complainants

                  

                            

O R D E R

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          It is alleged by complainants that their predecessor-in-interest Shweta appeared in the examination conducted by opposite parties (in short ‘OPs’) in the year 2015, but, in the paper of English she was shown as fail. Lateron when marks were re-evaluated she was shown pass. Due to mistake on the part of OPs she went into depression and ultimately committed suicide, so, they are entitled for compensation.

2.      Arguments heard. File perused.

3.      Learned counsel for the complainants vehemently argued that due to wrong marking she was declared fail previously, but, lateron she cleared that exams. Due to mistake on the part of OPs she went into depression and ultimately committed suicide, so, they are entitled for compensation as prayed. He has placed reliance upon Secretary Board of School Education Haryana Versus Mukesh Chand, 1994 (1) CPR 269; Sushant Yeswaraj Rode Versus Shri Ram Dev Baba Engineering College, 1993(III) CPR 624; KUK Versus Vinay Parkash Verma, 1993(II) CPJ 647; Himachal Institute of Engg. & Technology Versus Anil Kumar Gupta, 1994(I) CPR 182 and Consumer Educational and Research Society Versus Canara Bank, 1991(I) CPR 405.

4.      This argument is of no avail. Complainants cannot derive any benefit from the cited case laws because there was delay in declaring the result, whereas in the present case there is no negligence on their part. Proper procedure was followed as per rules and regulations of University about re-evaluation. Moreso there is no evidence on the file showing that she committed suicide due to this reason. Had it been so the matter must be reported to the Police. If any person has committed suicide due to any other reason it does not mean that education department is liable to pay compensation. It appears that complaint has been filed just to extract money from the OPs. It is nothing less than abuse of process of law, so, complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

Announced 27.03.2018 D.R.

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member, Addl. Bench

(R.K. Bishnoi) Judicial Member, Addl. Bench