M D UNIVERSITY Vs. SURJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 24.9.2004 passed by District Forum, Gurgaon in Complaint Case No. 818 dated 14.7.2000 of the respondent -complainant, whereby direction has been given to the appellant -opposite parties to issue B.Ed. Certificate with immediate effect and pay Rs. 1,000 as compensation for mental agony harassment and for incurring expenses in correspondence and conveyance. The amount was ordered to be paid within one month from the date of the order, failing which they are liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment.

(2.) PUT shortly, the facts of the case are that the complainant had appeared in M.A. Political Science in the month of April, 1995 and was successful. Similarly, she had also appeared in B.Ed. examination in May, 1995 but her result was withheld. In the month of June, 1998 she was informed by the appellant that she was ineligible to appear in the B.Ed. examination simultaneously with M.A. Political Science, which she took in the same year and this decision was communicated to her in the year 1995 itself. Subsequently, a policy decision was taken by the appellant to allow a mercy chance in December, 1998 to the candidates, who had already availed four chances. The complainant filed a fresh admission form, which was submitted along with Rs. 1,000 vide receipt No. 065842 dated 16.6.1998 and after her candidature was accepted, she was allotted roll No. 12821 and thereafter she took examination at Rohtak both in theory and practical in the month of December, 1998 and January, 1999. However, her result was not declared for which she made repeated representations to the appellant. After inquiry, she came to know that her result has been withheld because she was ineligible to appear in B.Ed. examination in May, 1995 but she could not have availed the mercy chances under the ordinance of the appellant. Forced by these circumstances, she filed the present complaint.

(3.) IN response to the notice, the opposite parties had put in appearance. They pleaded that the complainant was not competent to take two examinations in one year as per Clause 17 of the Ordinance of the appellant -university. At the same time, it was admitted that mercy chance was allowed as per letter dated 11.11.1998 to the complainant but factually this chance was meant for the candidates, who could not complete the degree within the spane of prescribed period. According to them, the complainant was duty bound to see the factual position and justified the withholding of the result of B.Ed. examination as she was ineligible to take mercy chance in December, 1998. The complaint was also resisted on the ground that the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction and that the dispute raised is not a consumer dispute. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.