HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY & ANOTHER Vs. VYJYANTI MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under the impugned rendition recorded by the learned trial Court, the suit of the plaintiff whereby she had sought damages to the tune of Rs.10 lacs stood partly decreed vis-a-vis a sum of Rs. 4 lacs standing quantified as damages in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The defendants/appellants herein stand aggrieved by the impugned rendition recorded by the learned trial Court wherefrom it has instituted the instant appeal herebefore.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendants a pauper (indigent person) for claiming damages to the tune of Rs.10 lacs on the allegations that she had appeared in B.Sc.-II, in April 1998 under Roll No. 400-596 assigned to her by the H.P.U. at Govt. Post Graduate College Dharamshala and was declared successful in the examination. She remained a brilliant student through out her studying carrier. She passed her matriculation and plus two examination in flying colours. When the detail marks sheet was supplied to her on 5.7.98 she was surprised to see her marks in Botany and Hindi in which she had secured 55 and 52 marks respectively which were too less in view of her good performance in the respective papers. She applied for revaluation of these papers on 20.7.1998 and when the result of the revaluation was conveyed to her by the defendants she was surprised and shocked to see that her marks in the zoology were reduced from 71 to 55 i.e., the subject for which she had never applied for revaluation and the defendants had also changed the practical and internal assessment marks to this subject from 28 and 4 to 30 and 6 and similarly Botany practical marks were changed from 30 & 6 to 28 and 4 and negligently without any reason. It is further averred by the plaintiff that against this illegal and glaring mistake of the defendants she made several requests to them through some messanger to rectify the said mistake committed by them and to issue certificate to her as per applied subjects but all her requests fell on deaf ears. She has averred further that on 15.10.1998, she made representation to the defendants in writing and brought the mistakes to their knowledge which was committed by their officials but her request was not honoured. When her requests were not accepted then she issued a legal notice to the defendants through her counsel on 29.1.99 which was replied by the defendants vide letter No. 3.2.98-99 HPU(Exam-I)B.Sc.-II dated 22.2.99 in which her request had been evasively rejected. Against this rejection of her claim by the defendants she had filed a petition before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum on 23.9.1999 which was rejected by the said forum on the ground of its maintainability. She has averred that the defendants were gross negligent and were deficient in providing service to her and they caused great inconvenience and unnecessary worries to her and she had to suffer great harassment and mental agony due to this negligent act of the defendants and her bright future got completely darkened and due to it she suffered mental shock and has become completely bed ridden and keeps herself isolated in her room and she has lost her health. She has averred further that her marks in zoology have been reduced without any reason whereas she had not opted for its revaluation and other paper i.e. Hindi for which she had applied for the revaluation has not been revalued by the defendants and due to this illegal act of the defendants she is liable to be compensated by awarding damages to her to the tune of Rs.10 lacs.

(3.) The suit of the plaintiff was contested by defendants by filing a written statement wherein they have taken preliminary objections inter alia maintainability, limitation etc. ON merits, they have averred that the father of the plaintiff was a senior teacher in the school holding the rank of Headmaster/Principal and he might have been influencing her result and that the plaintiff being a brilliant student in school has no relevancy in this particular case. They have averred further that the allegations of the plaintiff in para 4 of the plaint are false and imaginary. The revaluation form dated 20.07.1998 submitted by her would prove the falsity of her claim. They have specifically averred that the plaintiff although sought revaluation in Botany and Hindi papers in column NO.6, yet in column NO.10, of the form she has written for revaluation as her total marks in all subjects were less than she had expected. Due to this fact the revaluation branch of the University inadvertently got the entire record/papers of the plaintiff checked to which this inadvertent mistake had crept in. They have specifically averred that the plaintiff has improved her performance of the previous year and the mistake in the result at the time of revaluation had been committed due to over writing of the in column No.5. They have averred further that the plaint allegations are a cock and bull story having nothing to do with the facts of the case and the legal notice served upon them by the plaintiff had rightly been applied.