O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner, filed on 30..7..2009 is as follows. Petitioner is a private candidate of the opposite party during academic year 2003-2005 for M.A English. Petitioner applied for revaluation of answer scripts of M.A first year exam conducted in the year 2003-2004, by paying fee of Rs.200/- per paper. According to the petitioner she secured better marks for some of the papers. But one of the result related to American Literature is not yet obtained. On enquiry opposite party stated that answer script was irrecoverably lost. Petitioner approach the university for compensation but they replied that university is not liable for any compensation and advised the petitioner to prepare and write another examination. Petitioner states that due to the long gap of 4 years being being a working woman and a housewife, it is impossible to write another examination. According to the petitioner the service availed by the opposite party is not proper. So, she prays for a direction to refund the amount of -2- Rs. 200/- paid by the petitioner along with interest. Petitioner also claims Rs. 25,000/- as compensation. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party petitioner is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and there is no consumer dispute and complaint is not maintainable. Petitioner had applied for revaluation of 15 papers and the results of 14 papers were released after conducting its revaluation. In fact revaluation of answer scripts does not give any guarantee of increase in mark as alleged by the petitioner in her petition.. Further more revaluation of answer script has no direct or in direct relation to the examinations being conducted by the UGC. Averment of the petitioner with regard to loss and injury to the carrier and prospects of the petitioner are false and baseless. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. As per 5th instruction printed on the application form it is clearly stated that the university can never set in any case a time for issue of the results of revaluation and university will not be liable for loss of any kind sustained by the candidates concerned on account of the delay if any, in issuing the results of result of revaluation. Petitioner’s answer scripts of the paper American Lecturer was irrecoverably lost and therefore within the rules university conducted a special examination on 13..11..2008, in the same scheme and syllabus, after issuing official intimation to the petitioner but she did not appear for special examination. This practice of affording opportunity to write special examination has been -3- approved by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P (C) 14667/08 and CC No. 1384/08. So, the opposite party prays for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: i) Whether the petition is maintainable or not? ii) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? iii) Relief and costs? Evidence in this case consists of the affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A4 documents on the part of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B3 documents on the part of the opposite party. Point No. 1 Opposite party has a definite case that since the petitioner is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act petition is not maintainable. Counsel for the opposite party submitted that university is not a service provider and student is not a consumer. St. Joseph College of communication Vs. CDRF reported 2010 in (2) KLT 1039 in a case of pending before this Forum, as CC No. 285/09, Hon’ble High Court opined that university is a statutory body. It conducts examination in terms of its regulation. This is done under the supervision of controller of examination of the university. Further more, High Court categorically stated that university could not have been sued before the C.D.R.F by treating it as a service provider. The student also could not have been treated as consumer. In Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha ( reported in 2009 SAR Civil Suit) 1024 Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that the process of holding examination evaluating answer scripts, declaring -4- results and issuing certificate are different stages of a single statutory non commercial function. It is not possible to define this function as partly statutory and administrative. A student who participates in the examination, conducted by the board, has not hires or avails any service from the board for a consideration. On the other hand candidates who participate in the examination conducted by the board is a person who has gone for a course of study and who request the board to test him as to whether he has imbibed sufficient knowledge to be fit to be declared as having successfully completed the course of education. So, examination fee paid by the student is not a consideration for avail of any service, but the charge paid is as a privilege of participation in the examination. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 & 3 In view of finding in point No. 1, petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of August, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents for the Petitioner: Ext. A1: Memo Dtd: 23..7..2009 Ext. A2: Chapter 8 scrutiny / revaluation of answer script. Ext. A3: Partially memo dtd: 13..3..2008 Ext. A4: Mark list of the petitioner for the final M.A. Documents for the Opposite party Ext. B1: Application for revaluation Ext. B2: Order WPC 14669/08 Ext. B3: Order in CC- 1384/08 By Order
| | [HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas] Member[HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan] Member | | 
