UNIVERSITY OF JAMMU Vs. BRINDER NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The University of Jammu is aggrieved against an order passed by the J. and K. State Consumers Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). The order has been passed under the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Commission has ordered payment of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of compensation to the respondent No. 1.The circumstances under which the complaint to be filed before the Commission be noticed.

(2.) Mr. Brinder Nath-respondent No. 1 figured as a complainant before the Commission. His plea was that he was a regular student of M. A. M. College, Jammu in the academic year 1982-83. On account of unavoidable circumstances he stated that he was unable to appear in the examination. He was short of lectures also. He was again admitted in the college. The shortage of lectures was completed by him. His admission form was said to have been forwarded to the University with a view to enable him to take part in the process of examination for the Session 1983-84. It is stated that a certificate to the effect that the respondent No. 1 had completed his lecturers was issued in his favour. It is stated that the respondent No. 1 was a regular student of the college. The college authorities it is stated were under an obligation to give this information and send his complete case to the University authorities.

(3.) The respondent No. 1 took part in the examination. When his result was declared he was among the unsuccessful candidates. Reason for his being declared unsucessful was that he fell short of few marks. On coming to know of his result the petitioner submitted a representation to the University authorities and also to the Principal of the College. In para 6 of the complaint, it is submitted that the Principal of the M. A. M. College Jammu wrote several letters to the University authorities wherein he (principal) clearly admitted that it was the fault of the college authorities that the internal assessment could not be sent to the University authorities in time and the complainant was not at fault. It was stated that the benefits of internal assessment was required to be given to the complainant and he should be declared successful in the examination.