UNIVERSITY OF AJMER Vs. HANUMAN DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party - appellant has filed this appeal under sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) against the order dated 13. 12. 89 passed by the District Forum, Bikaner in Complaint Case No. 198/89. THE complainant-respondent submitted a complaint before the District Forum on 25. 8. 89 stating that his grand-son Shri Harish Singh Bhati son of late Shri Jagdish Singh Bhati had appeared in the second year B. Com. (Three year Degree Course (T. D. C.) in the year 1988 from B. J. S. Rampuria Jain College, Bikaner. He was declared successful at the examination in the month of August, 1988. He did not receive marks-sheet of all the subjects until the date of filing of the complaint, though he made several requests to the Principal, B. J. S. Rampuria Jain College, Bikaner that marks-sheet may be delivered to him as early as possible. After considerable time, the marks-sheet in respect of the subjectsalesmanship of Office Management, was sent whereas aforesaid Shri Harish Singh had appeared in all the subjects as a regular student. His roll number was 07598. He wrote three times to the Governor of Rajasthan, who is Chancellor of the University. This report was sent along with letter dated 31-3. 89 by the Registrar Rajasthan University, Jaipur to the Controller of Examination, Ajmer, Despite that the marks-sheet was not received. As the marks sheet was not sent in time, Harish Singh could not appear at the annual examination in April, 1989 and so his one year was wasted. On account of that, the complainant, who is a gurdian of Harish Singh suffered mental agony and financial losses. THE following relief was sought**********

(2.) SEPARATE replies were filed by the Principal, B. J. S. Rampuria Jain College, Bikaner and the opposite-party. In the version of the case, which was submitted on 16. 9. 89, the opposite-party stated that the result of Harish Singh for Second Year T. D. C. (Com.) Examination, 1988 was declared on 2. 8. 88 and as per the Tabulation Register, he was declared as passed. It was stated in the Tabulation Register that he was registered only in the subject of Salesmanship and Office Management. After receipt of the notice from the District Forum, the correct position was revealed and thereafter Harish Singh was registered in all the subjects and his result was declared on 11. 8. 89 and marks-sheet was sent by registered post. It was pleaded by the opposite-party that no representation was received from Shri Harish Singh to the University of Ajmer as the representations were made to the University of Rajasthan. The complainant submitted his affidavit sworn on 5. 10. 89. On behalf of the opposite-party affidavit of Shri Prem Chand Jain, Section Officer, was filed. The District Forum passed the impugned order on 13. 10. 89. It held that on account of the negligence of the opposite party one year of Shri Harish Singh was lost and that this negligence in rendering services to Shri Harish Singh caused mental agony. The complainant, according to the District Forum, must have also suffered mental torture and, therefore, it awarded Rs. 5000/- as compensation to Shri Harish Singh. Aggrieved, the complainant has filed this appeal as aforesaid.

(3.) IN General Manager, South Eastern Railway and Ors. Vs. Shri Anand Prasad Sinha & ors. (3), the National Commission made the following observations "it is an established principle of law that the compensation awarded must have a rational relation to the nature and extent of the injury, inconvenience or physical and mental suffering* caused to the complainant by the action or omission of the opposite-party. No attempt was made by the State Commission to approach the question of quantification of compensation from this correct perspective. The status of the complainant was of little relevance in this context since every passenger who has paid for first class travel and who has been subjected to inconvenience and suffering of a like nature on account of defects in the department is entitled to similar treatment in the matter of award of compensation, irrespective of any question of statue. " Again in Commercial Officer, Office of the Telecom, District Manager, Patna vs. Bihar State Warehousing Corporation (4), the National Commission has held as under: " As indicated by us in some of our earlier judgments, the award of compensation by the Forums established under the Act has to be made only on well recognised legal principles governing the quantification of damages or compensation. The compensation to be awarded has to be quantified on a rational basis on a consideration of material produced before the adjudicating forum showing the extent of injury suffered and the manner in which and the extent to which monetary loss has been caused thereby to the complainant. . . . . . . . . " There is no material on record to substantiate the claim for compensation. The District Forum did not approach the question from the correct perspective. The complainant has failed to substantiate by sufficient evidence the claim for compensation- The compensation has been assessed by the District Forum arbitrarily. Bearing in mind the principles laid down by the National Commission in the aforesaid decisions, we are of opinion that the District Forum was not right in awarding compensation to the complainant.