Per Hon’ble Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member
This is an appeal filed by Shivaji University Kolhapur against judgement and award passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur in consumer complaint no.594/2008 decided on 22/05/2009. While allowing the complaint filed by the respondent, the forum has directed appellant University to pay compensation of `1 lakh and costs of `1000/- to the complainant. As such, this appeal is filed challenging judgement and award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur, by the original opponent.
Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:-
Complainant filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of ShivajiUniversity, Kolhapur. According to complainant he had taken admission for Post Graduation in Journalism and Communication Science in ShivajiUniversity, Kolhapur in the year 2007-08. He completed the course and the result was declared on 01/09/2008. In the said result against his name and examination number RRCC was mentioned. RRCC means, “Result Reserved for Copying Case”. He approached Registrar and Vice Chancellor of the said University and requested that his result should be declared as early as possible since he was in need of employment, but his result was not immediately declared. He pleaded that he had not resorted to any copying in the University examination, but still his result was withheld on the ground that he was involved in copying case, hence he suffered mental harassment and he also suffered humiliation and loss of reputation, he could not get employment. He could not seek admission in M.Phil Course and, therefore, ShivajiUniversity was solely responsible for withholding his result for no fault of his.
The University contested the complaint by filing written version. According to University, the dispute raised by the complainant was not a consumer dispute. University pleaded that complainant’s result was withheld by them for one month because at the time of examination of B.Tech/MBA, there was some chaotic situation created by Students’ union and they had ordered conducting enquiry into the said incidence and during the pendency of the enquiry, result was withheld on finding that complainant was one such student who had created chaotic situation. Ultimately, after enquiry was over, his result was declared cancelling the endorsement “Result Reserved for Copying Case”. Therefore, according to University complainant had not suffered in any manner and he had even taken admission for M.Phil Course in the ShivajiUniversity, Kolhapur itself.
Forum considering rival affidavits, documents and arguments advanced by both the parties held that there was clearly deficiency in service on the part of ShivajiUniversity, Kolhapur in withholding the result of the complainant. As such, he could not apply for employment during the period his result was withheld. He also suffered in his reputation and, therefore, forum held that Shivaji University, Kolhapur was squarely responsible for giving damages to the complainant and forum allowed the complaint and awarded compensation of `1 lakh against Shivaji University, Kolhapur. Aggrieved by this award, ShivajiUniversity, Kolhapur has come up in appeal.
We heard submissions of Mr.A.V.Patwardhan-Advocate for the appellant and respondent in person argued himself.
We are finding that conducting of the examination, declaration of results, assessment of papers is the statutory function of the University since University owes its existence to the Statute. University is also controlled by University Grants Commission, Central Government body and from time to time appellant University is supposed to act upon guidelines and resolutions forwarded to it by University Grants Commission. That apart, conducting of the examination, declaration of results is the statutory function of the University and since ShivajiUniversity is one such University which is brought into being under the Statute, which is not disputed by the respondent in person in his argument, we are of the view that there is no consumer dispute involved in the present case.
Respondent was prosecuting Master degree in Master of Journalism and Communication Science in the year 2007-2008. He attended University Course. Throughout the year he appeared for examination conducted by ShivajiUniversity. At the time of declaration of result on 01/09/2008 he found that against his Roll number there is endorsement “RRCC” which means that ‘Reserved for Copying Case’. University has given reasonable explanation as to why they had withheld result of respondent herein. In the course of examination conducted by ShivajiUniversity for the B.Tech./MBA, there was some chaotic situation created by the students. Nuisance creators were some students who included the respondent herein. That was reasonable belief of the University on certain information about participation of respondent herein in the said agitation and, therefore, University had appointed Enquiry Committee. Enquiry Committee was asked to submit the report as early as possible and it is the case of the appellant University that as soon as enquiry was over the executive Council of the University decided to let of these students looking to the blot students would be having throughout their career and, therefore, those students were exonerated and their results were immediately declared and in the process, there was delay of about one month. So there was delay of only one month (according to respondent there was delay of 37 days) in declaration of the result of the respondent. For such delay of 37 days at the most, forum was not justified at all in granting compensation of `1 lakh in favour of the complainant. Forum has not appreciated the facts on record and in a zeal to give justice to consumer, forum passed award directing appellant University to pay sum of `1 lakh as compensation to the respondent under the impugned award.
We are finding that this was not a consumer dispute at all. University is a statutory body. It exercises statutory function to conduct various examinations and for reasonable ground, result of respondent herein was withheld pending enquiry and once enquiry was over and once it was found that the respondent was exonerated his result was declared. So there was simply late declaration of result of the respondent herein on genuine grounds. Moreover, Ld.counsel Mr.Patwardhan for the appellant brought to our notice judgement of the apex court in the case of Bihar School Examination Board v/s. Suresh Prasad Sinha reported in 2009 CTJ 1057 (Supreme Court) (CP). In this case question before the Supreme Court was whether conduction of examination by the Bihar School Examination Board is a statutory function of the University Board or whether it is service provider. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that conduction of examination, declaration of results by the Secondary Board or University is a statutory function and under any circumstances, School Board or University cannot be said to be a service provider to the students who appeared for such examination. So student cannot be said to be a consumer vis-à-vis School Board or University who conducts examination and, therefore, consumer complaint against them would not lie. This ratio of the apex court is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, though admittedly, there is delayed declaration of the result of the respondent by the appellant University they were justified in doing so. Moreover, respondent cannot be said to be a consumer of the Shivaji University/appellant herein and, therefore, consumer complaint as allowed by the District Forum, Kolhapur is bad in law. Said award cannot be sustained in law. As such, we are inclined to allow the appeal to quash and set aside the impugned order passed in consumer complaint no.CC/08/594. Hence the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
Impugned order is quashed and set aside.
Consumer complaint is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 01st February, 2012.
