JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL)

          The complainant, who is petitioner herein, was employed with Indian Council of Agriculture Research.  He took admission in the MTech-PhD(computer science)course of the respondent University.  He took study leave of three years from his employer.  He was permitted by the university to complete the course in three and half years.  He submitted his MTech thesis in January, 2006.  On 27.03.2006 the University informed him that he would not be able to continue the PhD since the University did not have any PhD as a faculty member.  The petitioner/complainant, therefore, re-joined his office in April, 2006.  Alleging deficiency on the part of the University in rendering services to him, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. 

2.      The complaint was resisted by the University which took a preliminary objection that the complainant was not a ‘consumer’ of the University.  It was also stated by the University that he could not complete MTech course in two years and, therefore, did not apply for completing his PhD.  It was also stated that the respondent completed MTech in November, 2006 and, therefore, he could not have completed the remaining course which was to be completed within a minimum  period of 18 months. 

3.      The District Forum ruled in favour of the complainant and directed the University to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant within one month from the receipt of the order failing which the ordered amount was to carry interest @ 6% p.a.

4.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the University approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.

5.      Vide its order dated 04.05.2010 the State Commission partly allowed the appeal and directed the University to pay Rs. 7,00,000/- to the complainant within one month from the receipt of its order failing which the said amount was to carry 6% interest from the date of the order till the payment.  A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded to the complainant as the costs of the appeal.

6.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the University approached this Commission by way a revision petition bearing No. 2682 of 2010. The said revision petition is stated to have been dismissed by this Commission vide its order final order dated 10.08.2010.

7.      The University thereafter approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition  which came to be finally decided vide order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 21.11.2019.  The appeal filed by the University was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  The order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reads as under:-

“We have heared learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record.

We do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order inasmuch as it seems that M.Tech and PHD was the integrated course and could not be bifurcated into two courses i.e. M.Tech and PHD before completion of the course.  Consequently, the University could not have dis-continued PHD course so far as respondent is concerned.  Hence, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.”

8.      Thus as far as the University is concerned, the order passed by the State Commission became final on account of its revision petition as well as it appeal having been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

9.      This Revision Petition bearing No. 3103 of 2010 was filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the compensation.

10.    The submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent is that in view of the final order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court  dated 21.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 7249 of 2011 the revision petition filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of compensation cannot continue.  This is also his submission that the Complainant did not press for enhancement of the compensation before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 

11.    The complainant, on the other hand, submits that this revision petition had been filed by him before the final order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that is why he did not press before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, for enhancement of compensation.  He further states that he is now tired of the litigation and he is ready and willing to withdraw this revision petition seeking enhancement of compensation if the payment, in terms of the order of the State Commission which was upheld not only by this Commission but also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is made to him within two weeks from today.  The feelings and sentiments of the complainant are fully justified.  The respondent University is, therefore, directed to make entire payment in terms of the order of the State Commission dated  04.05.2010 to the complainant within two weeks from today failing which the Vice-Chancellor of the University shall be personally liable to be proceeded against under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

12.    The payment will be transferred electronically in the account of the complainant who shall furnish the particulars of his bank account to the University within a week from today  by an e-mail to the University or its counsel.