ALEX J REBELLO Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR BANGALORE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the complainant before the District Forum where his complaint was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable which order was affirmed by the State Commission on an appeal filed before it by the petitioner, hence this revision petition.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that the complainant's son was a student of Engineering College in Bangalore where after the writing of papers for the IIIrd Year, the University did not declare the result of the child on the grounds that he was absent. On representation for scrutiny he was awarded 7 and 8 marks respectively in the papers of Transmission Distribution and HV Lab. Technology and 'Pulse and Digital' Circuits. When revaluation was sought, the reply from the respondent was that there was no change in the marks. The prayers in the complaint was that opposite party be directed to transmit the answer sheets in respect of the above mentioned two papers so that District Forum could verify the correctness of the marks given, if need be, the papers be evaluated by foreign Professors and in the case of any lapse on the part of the respondent, award a compensation of Rs. 30,000/-. The complainant had made the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar personally responsible-for this deficiency. The District Forum vide its order dated 21.8.1991 decided to proceed against the Registrar only. After hearing the parties the District Forum dismissed the complaint as not being maintainable in the light of principles laid down by the National Commission that the complainant in such cases do not hire the services of the respondent. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission met the same fate on the same grounds. This revision petition was filed by the petitioner before this Commission on 16.10.1997 which was found to be defective on the ground that only one copy of the material/documents was filed. The petitioner/complainant appeared in person on the date of hearing i.e. on 11.12.2002. The said defects even now were not removed. Since, the petitioner is a senior citizen and had come all the way from Bangalore, we went ahead with the proceedings and heard him. The petitioner had come prepared with the written arguments, which were also taken on record.

(3.) AGAIN in, Registrar, University of Bombay v. Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, Bombay, I (1994) CPJ 146 (NC), we had held :