JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL)

The complainant/respondent was a student of B.Com course of the petitioner university during the period 2005-2008. A Provisional Certificate dated 9.6.2008 was issued to him by the university, certifying that he had completed the said course and passed the examination vide Registration  No.206049004.  Based upon the said Provisional Certificate, the complainant joined the MBA course of Periyar University in Tamil Nadu and he claims to have completed the said course. However, later the petitioner university refused to issue the B.Com Degree to the complainant on the ground that he had not appeared in the practical examination prescribed for the B.Com course. Being aggrieved, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the university interalia on the ground that the complainant had not appeared in the practical examination prescribed for B.Com course in the 3^rd year and, therefore, the degree could not have been issued to him. It was also alleged that the Provisional Certificate was wrongly issued to the complainant.

3.      The District Forum vide its order dated 25.2.2015 allowed the complaint and directed the university to issue the convocation certificate and also return the original intermediate certificate of the complainant to him. The university was also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.

4.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the university approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Since there was delay of almost one year in preferring the said appeal, the State Commission declined to condone the delay and consequently dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Being aggrieved, the university is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

5.      Since the complaint came to be instituted way back in May 2014, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on merits. The only issue which arises for consideration on merit is as to whether the complainant had appeared in the practical examination prescribed for the B.Com course in the 3^rd year of the said course or not. Admittedly, the university declined to issue the B.Com Degree to the complainant solely on the plea that he had not appeared in the practical examination.  Despite the university having taken the said stand, the complainant did not even allege in the complaint that he had actually appeared in the practical examination prescribed for the 3^rd year of B.Com course of the university. Even in his affidavit filed by way of evidence, he did not make such an averment. The university, on the other hand, expressly pleaded in the reply filed before the District Forum that the complainant had not appeared in the practical examination in the 3^rd year of the course. In view of the stand taken by the university, it was for the complainant to allege and prove that he had actually appeared in the practical examination in the 3^rd year of the course. That having not been done, there is no escape from the conclusion that actually he had not appeared in the said practical examination. In fact, the attendance sheet for the practical examination filed by the university does not even contain the Registration No. 206049004 which was allotted to the complainant. In these circumstances, the university cannot be directed to issue the B.Com degree certificate to the complainant. Having not appeared in the practical examination, the complainant knew all along that he had not completed the B.Com course, and therefore the issuance of the Provisional Certificate to him, by the university was a mistake. Instead of bringing the mistake to the notice of the Registry, he chose to take its advantage, by taking admission in the MBA course. He thereby adopted an unfair practice, in order to take admission in that course. Therefore, he is only himself to blame for creating the situation in which he is placed. The impugned orders are, therefore, set aside and the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. I need not go in to the question as to whether the complainant can be said to be a consumer, as defined in section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.