MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY Vs. MEENA YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed by the Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak has to be allowed, in view of the settled position of law as laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in First Appeal No.133 of 1992, Seema Bhatia V/s. The Registrar, Rajasthan University, decided on 12th of April, 1993 and Registrar, University of Bombay V/s. Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, Bombay, 1994 1 CPJ 146; that in disputes regarding academic matters against the University, provisions of the Consumer Protection Act can not be invoked, as a student is neither a consumer nor does the University render service for consideration etc. In the present case, the complainant had approached the District Forum Gurgaon with a grievance against the M. D. University, Rohtak that as there was a patent mistake in the declaration of her result of B. Sc. Final Class, which had to be rectified by issuing a corrigendum, thereby rendering the request for revaluation of the answer books as infructuous, she suffered a considerable loss to her academic career. On that basis, she approached the District Forum for redressal of her grievance. Learned District Forum after examining the matter allowed the complaint by awarding payment of Rs.2,500/- as compensation.

(2.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Tej Singh Yadav, Authorised Representative of the respondent, we find that the complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum. Consequently, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the learned District Forum and dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.