The present complaint has been preferred by the BCA student Sumandeep Kaur Dhillon complainant (against the titled opposite parties) claiming to have successfully completed all the courses in BCA and also having appeared in the FST-01 Examination in TEE June’ 2007 for which however, her marks had not been updated on the ‘Grade Card’ although she had received the result by post vide the related ‘status-card’; and thus she has sought redressal of her consumer grievance(s)/infringement caused by the titled opposite party1 University by way of direction to it for up-dating and dispatch of the ‘Grade Card’ to her besides an award of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- & cost of Rs.5,000/- in her favor.

2.       The opposite party no.1 University preferred to stay absent in spite of successful service of summons and thus were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte vide the forum’s orders dated 10.05.2016. Further, at the request statement made by the complainant the name of the opposite Party2 College was deleted from the array of defendants/opposite parties vide the forum’s orders dated 23.08.2016. Also, the forum vides its orders dated 14.09.2016 had allowed the complainant’s application for delay filed along with the present complaint.

3.       The complainant has filed her affidavit Ex.CW1/A to support the allegations of the complaint along with copies of the legal notice Ex.C1, postal receipts Ex.C2 & Ex.C3 and OP1’s reply (Ex.C4) of 15.01.2016 advising therein that the complainant had not appeared in the TEE (Term Ending Examination)’ June, 2007; whereas vides its Course Completion Status Report (Ex.C5) of TEE 2007, the complainant Sumandeep Kaur Dhillon has been shown has successfully completed (SC) the FST-1 (TEE). Further, we find though strangely that the Attendance Sheet for June’ 2007 TEE (Ex.C11) shows/exhibits complainant with Enrollment # 055146188 as ‘Absent’ but the Grade Card Status (Ex.C12) as on August’ 18, 2015 with Enrollment # 055146188 shows/exhibits the status of the complainant as having ‘completed’ the BCA program. However, it is clearly mentioned on the Grade Card Status Ex.C12 that it is ‘for information only’ and the status is ‘indicative’ only and cannot be used as a substitute for the final grade card which is sent by SRE at the end of a semester. Thus, the complainant’s case stands proved since the ‘Final Grade Card’ is still awaited by her; and, the documentary evidence as produced by the complainant proves the facts pertaining to her leveled out allegations.

4.       We have carefully examined and thoroughly considered the evidence along with its supporting documents (statutory merits etc) as available on records of the proceedings in the backdrop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant and also the scope of ‘adverse inference’ that may be discretionarily drawn on account of willful non-participation by the opposite party1 university opting to be proceeded against exparte giving rise to judicial discretionary inference/presumption that the exparte litigant/ witness has no defense to prosecute before the adjudicating court and no legs to stand in the witness-box to rebut the prosecutor’s allegation/charges.

5.       We find that the complainant has successfully proved the non-issuance of Final Grade Card by the opposite part1 university in spite of her having successfully completed/passed the BCA TTE  as exhibited per the Grade Card Status Ex.C12 at the face of inadvertently/wrong-fully issued communiqué Ex.C13 by the titled opposite party1 university who have apparently exhibited ‘deficiency in service’ to have unscrupulously infringed the consumer rights and subservient position of the student complainant and that lines it up to an adverse statutory award under the Act. Finally, the OP1 University need be held responsible and liable to redress the complainant’s grievance besides to compensate her for the loss and harassment incurred along with the burden of forced litigation. Somehow, we are inclined to moderate the award of compensation on account of the contributory ‘delay’ incurred at the complainant’s own end on account of her ‘illness’ and other factors/pre-occupations as reported in her application for condonation of delay.    

6.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled opposite party #1 i.e., the Registrar (Student Evaluation Division), Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi; to issue the requisite Final Grade Card (complete in all respects) to the present complainant (enrollment # 055146188) in terms of Grade Card Status as on 18.08.2015 (Ex.C12) besides to pay her Rs.5,000/- as  compensation for having suffered loss and harassment etc and Rs.3000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of orders till actual payment.

7.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.           

                                                                                                         (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                      President   

Announced:                                                             (Jagdeep Kaur)

December, 06 2016                                                         Member

*MK*