REGISTRAR RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY Vs. MANISH SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. THE relevant facts in this case are that the respondent had appeared at the B. Sc. first year examination held by the appellant University in the year 1992. He had secured 20 marks only in his English paper. The respondent required the appellant to re-evaluate his answer book. The appellant however, could not re-evaluate his answer book as the same could not be traced by the employees of the appellant in their office. The appellant appears to have given an option to the respondent to either appear at the main examination next year or in the special examination to be held by the appellant University in due course of time. The respondent did not exercise the option in any way and approached the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The Forum, vide its order under appeal, accepted the complaint of the respondent and directed the appellant to award marks in English paper of the B. Sc. first year examination, 1992 to the complainant on average basis. The average basis was to be adopted with reference to the marks obtained by the respondent in other subjects in the same examination. Aggrieved by such order of the Forum the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellant has rightly invited our attention to our decision dated 17.10.2000 made in Revision Petition Nos.27/2000 and 28/2000 and submitted that relying upon the decision of the National Commission in First Appeal No.138/1992, Seema Bhatia V/s. Registrar, Rajasthan University, decided on 12.4.1993, we had held that matters relating to evaluation of answer books do not fall within the purview of the summary jurisdiction of the redressal agencies under the C. P. Act, 1986 (the Act ). On examining the facts of the two cases we are satified and accordingly hold that the question of re-evaluation of the answer books of the respondent complainant did not fall within the purview of "consumer dispute" and definition of "service" as given in Sections 2 (1) (o) of the Act.

(3.) In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed with cost on parties throughout. Appeal allowed.