GANDHI VOCATIONAL COLLEGE Vs. HIMANSHI JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this revision petition is to the common order dated 22.05.2010 passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (State Commission for short) dismissing the four separate appeals filed by the two OPs, (OPs 1 & 2) against the respective orders of the District Forum whereby the District Forum had directed both the OPs, petitioners herein, to pay compensation as well as cost in each case for the OPs having disallowed the concerned complainants to appear in the examination.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken from the consumer complaint no.273 of 2008 which have been referred to by the State Commission as well in its impugned order. Other complaints are also on similar facts and circumstances. It is stated that the complainants got admission for the academic year 2007-2008 for the first semester for BCA in the OPs College as regular students. The examination was scheduled to be held on 14.02.2008 in which the students were to appear but since the OP-2 had not given the roll numbers on the ground that roll numbers were not sent by the OP-3 University, the students could not be admitted to the examination. However, on undertaking by the students, they were permitted to appear in the examination but their result was not declared. FOR this reason, the students approached the Collector and with his intervention, the College promised to give the results but still the results were not received. The students, therefore, filed a Writ Petition no.913 of 2008 before the High Court which directed the OP-3 University to declare the results of the petitioners and if they clear the examination, they should also be given benefit of admission for further course. It was also clarified that for such of the students who had not appeared in the examination, the University may arrange special examination within a period of one month. Resultantly, the students were permitted to take the examination and were declared pass. Alleging deficiency in service and having suffered unnecessary harassment, the students/complainants filed their complaints before the District FORum for getting compensation. It was in the context of such complaints that the District FORum accepted the complaint against OPs -1 & 2 for deficiency in service and consequently awarded compensation jointly and severally against the two OPs along with cost. When the orders of the District FORum were carried in appeal before the State Commission by the OPs/petitioners herein, the same came to be dismissed and the orders of the District FORum were confirmed by the common impugned order.

(3.) JUSTIFYING and supporting the concurrent orders of the fora below accepting the complaint in question, learned counsel for respondents - 2, 4, 5 & 6 submitted that the compensation and the cost have been awarded against only the OP College because the ratio of the case relied upon by the petitioners covers non-maintainability of a consumer complaint against a statutory board/university and hence the same cannot be made applicable to the present petitions. The revision petitions filed by the petitioners are, therefore, liable for dismissal.