PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

                    These are two appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by the complainant against the orders dated 19.7.2011 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which the complaints filed by him against the OPs were dismissed

2.                           The facts, in brief, are that, the complainant is a practising Advocate. He was doing LLM from Kurukshetra University having registration number 06-DE-664. He appeared in LLM (Part I) examination in the year 2009 but he was not satisfied with the result, therefore, he wanted to appear in the supplementary examination to improve his marks, which was to be held in the year 2010. The complainant sent the examination forms of LL.M (I) and LL.M (II) along with demand draft to the Kurukshetra University for appearing in the said examinations. It was stated that an envelop containing the examination forms and the demand draft was handed over to OPs No.1 and 2 on 17.5.2010 for being delivered to the University, that the OPs did not deliver the said envelop containing the examination forms to the University in time and ultimately returned the said letter to the complainant on 28.6.2010. In the meanwhile, the last date for submission of the examination forms had expired. It was stated by the complainant that either the OPs should have delivered the letter to the University or the letter should have been returned to the complainant promptly, so that he could have resubmitted the same to the University in time. OPs 3 to 6 i.e. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra was also alleged to be equally deficient in service for not sending roll number slip of LL.M (1) and LL.M (II) to him, which was to be held in the month of May, 2010 and it was prayed by the complainant that the said University be   directed to grant 15 additional marks in all the 6 papers. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complaint was filed against the respondents and the Kurukshetra University claiming inter alia a compensation of Rs.18 lakhs.  He has filed another complaint against the respondents and the University in which also similar relief of additional marks and compensation of Rs.18 lakhs was claimed for delay in submission of LL.M (II) examination.

3.                           OPs No. 1 and 2 (now respondents) in their written reply admitted that an envelop containing the examination forms and the demand draft was handed over to them on 17.5.2010 and the same was delivered to Kurukshetra University on 19.5.2010 but the officials of the University refused to accept the same as by that time, the last date for submission of examination forms was over and the envelop contained three forms of different departments. It was stated that the complainant should have been vigilant regarding the rules and regulations for submitting the forms and should have sent the forms well in time. Thus the failure was on the part of the complainant in delaying the submission of the examination forms and not because of any deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Rests of the allegations made in the complaint were denied.

4.                           In their reply, Kurukshetra University (OP No. 3 to 6) admitted that the complainant was a candidate of LL.M in the session 2008-2009 but they denied if a consumer complaint lies against them and if the Consumer Fora have any jurisdiction to entertain and try these complaints. It was denied that the complainant applied for improvement because as per provisions of rules and regulations of Kurukshetra University, there is no provision of improvement in LL.M. Thus there was no question to apply for the improvement or receiving of examination form and examination fee for the improvement as such there was no need to issue any roll number slip for the improvement.  Hence the complainant was having no jurisdiction or any cause of action to file the complaints. Pleading no deficiency on its part the OP-University prayed for dismissal of the complaints.  

5.                           On 16.2.2011 the complainant made a statement before the learned District Forum that he did not want to press the complaint against OPs No. 3 to 6 and their name be deleted from the array of OPs. The District Forum accordingly deleted the names of OPs No. 3 to 6 from the array of OPs.

6.                           Parties led evidence in support of their case. 

7.                           After hearing the ld. Counsel for the OPs and complainant in person and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum dismissed both the complaints, as stated in the opening para of this order

8.                           Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeals have been filed by the appellant/complainant against both the orders.

9.                           We have heard the arguments of appellant/complainant in person and have perused the record to decide whether these appeals should be admitted for regular hearing.  We are of the opinion that there is no merit in the same.

10.                       The appellant/complainant has argued that there was grave deficiency in service on the part of respondents/OPs who failed to deliver the parcel to the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.  The learned District Forum found no merit in this contention. It may be mentioned that the forms were sent by the complainant to the University on 17.5.2010 and these were presented to the University by the respondents on 19.5.2011. On that date the period for applying for reappearing and revaluation was since over and therefore, the Kurukshetra University refused to accept the forms on the ground that “the parcel contained three forms pertaining to different departments and also the date was over”.  The contention of the appellant/complainant is that he received the Detail Marks Card on 16.5.2010 and could apply for revaluation within 15 days from the date of receipt. He did not produce before the learned District Forum any such Detailed Marks Card to show as to on which date it was issued by the University.  He did not produce any document to suggest if he had received the said DMC on 16.5.2010. He did not produce the instructions issued by the Kurukshetra University to show as to within what period he could apply for revaluation.  He however wishes the District Forum to presume all these facts which were necessary for him to prove in order to succeed in the case.  Otherwise also, if the Kurukshetra University refused to accept the admission forms, no consumer complaint could lie against them because the complainant is not a consumer as regards the said University.  There is therefore, no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, so far as delivery of parcel on 19.5.2010 to the Kurukshetra University was concerned.

11.                       The complainant has then argued that in fact the parcel which was refused by the Kurukshetra University on 19.5.2010 was delivered back to him on 28.6.2010 and this delay on the part of the respondents was deficiency in service for which a penalty of Rs.18 lacs should be imposed on them in each case.  The contention of the complainant is that after the parcel was refused, it was their duty to immediately return the same to the complainant.  He however, did not produce any such instructions under which the respondent was to return the documents to the complainant within a specific period nor is there any agreement between the parties in this respect. In fact the complainant had given parcel containing the documents to the respondents for delivering to the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, which act they performed.  In the absence of an agreement or rules and regulations we cannot say if the delay in sending back the forms to the complainant would constitute deficiency in service. Moreover, this delay did not adversely affect the complainant.

12.                       The complainant has argued that if the documents had been delivered back to him by the respondents promptly, he would have personally gone to the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra to submit the same and the delay therefore, caused a huge mental and physical harassment to him.  This contention is far from truth.  Had there been any such intention on the part of the complainant to go personally to deliver the forms to the University, he would have gone earlier before the last date for receipt of the forms expired.  He however, did not bother to go and it appears that there was no intention on his part to go personally to the University for this purpose.  When the University did not accept the forms on the ground that the last date for receipt of the same was over, even if the documents were returned to him on the next date there was no use of going to University for this purpose after the last date was over.  The delay if any in returning the documents was therefore, of no consequence because the same did not affect adversely the chances of the admission forms being accepted by University. The rejected admission forms were to lie with the complainant as it is whether w.e.f. 19.5.2010 or w.e.f. 28.6.2010 whenever the same were delivered back to him.  This contention on the part of the complainant that he would have personally gone to submit the documents would not have improved the matter nor could it have extended the last date for admission of forms.

13.                       The complainant did not prove nor mentioned as to which was the last date for submissions of forms nor he produced any document issued by the University to suggest if the admission form could have been accepted by the University after 19.5.2010.

14.                       The present complaint was filed by the complainant in order to get through the LLM examination and to earn handsome amount by way of compensation from the OPs.  The complaint was filed by him not only against the respondents but against the Kurukshetra University through its (1) Vice Chancellor (2) Registrar (3) Controller Examination and (4) Assistant Registrar Examination.  It may be mentioned that out of 6 papers given by him he wanted to appear in four of them. It appears that he has failed in all the four papers because the University submitted the written reply stating that there is no provision for improvement in LLM, meaning thereby that if he had cleared those papers, he could not have applied for reappear in the same.  It is also interesting to note that he needed at least 15 marks in each paper that is why he has prayed for grant of 15 additional marks in all 6 papers as mentioned in the head note and para 2 of the complaint. However, in the prayer clause he requested for grant of 15% additional marks in all five or six papers.  Needless to mention that neither such a complaint could lie against the Kurukshetra University nor such a direction to give him additional marks could be issued by the Consumer Forum.

15.                       In addition to 15 or 15% additional marks the complainant has also prayed for a hefty amount of Rs.18 lakhs by way of compensation in each complaint.  He could not explain as to how this much amount of Rs.36 lakhs should be granted by the Consumer Fora in case where the delivery was made in time but after refusal, the return of the parcel was delayed by OP.  The complainant has also not been able to explain as to how he suffered mental and physical harassment or tension if the admission forms which were sent by him after the last date for receipt of the same was over and the University refused to accept the same on this ground. The intentions of the complainant can well be judged from the relief claimed by him.

16.                       In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP/respondents and the complaints were rightly dismissed by the learned District Forum.  These were false and frivolous complaints and we do not find any merit in these appeals to admit for regular hearing.  The same are accordingly dismissed in limine.

                    Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.