PUNJAB UNIVERSITY Vs. RAM CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order dated 9. 1. 2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant direction has been given to the appellant-opposite party to issue DMC to the complainant through a special messenger or through courier and to ensure the delivery of the DMC within 15 days of the receipt. The opposite party was further directed to pay Rs. 2,000 as compensation to the complainant and Rs. 1,000 as litigation expenses.

(2.) PUT shortly, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is employed as Additional Ahlmad in Judicial Department Sessions Division, Sirsa. In order to improve his educational qualifications with prior permission of the authorities submitted form for M. A. Part-I, English exam to be held by the Punjab University, Chandigarh in the month of May-June, 2001. He also submitted demand draft bearing No. 516158 dated 24. 1. 2001 for Rs. 700 issued by the State Bank of India, Mandi Dabwali Branch along with the examination form. It is the case of the complainant that he had passed B. A. Examination with Roll No. 41218 and his result was declared by the University on 15. 1. 2001 and for that reason there was no delay on his part in submitting the examination form. The said form was received by the University in the last week of January, 2001. In the second half of May, 2001 he received a letter No. 23278/ma-I/eng. /2k dated 18. 5. 2001 whereby he was informed that a sum of Rs. 2,010 was outstanding against him as late fee. The complainant informed the University that he had sent the examination form within the stipulated period from the declaration of the result. In response to his letter the opposite party as per letter dated 27. 6. 2001 informed the complainant that the late fee demanded was not recoverable and thereafter withdrew the demand as per letter dated 27. 6. 2001. At the same time a sum of Rs. 135 was demanded from him as special fee. The stand of the complainant is that as he is resident of Village Danger Khera, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozpur (Pb.), th special fee was not chargeable from him but still he made the payment. Thereafter, the roll number for the said examination was not sent to him. During this period the examination date for M. A.-I had passed. Under these circumstances it was complained that due to the negligence and lapse on the part of the opposite party, his one precious year of studies had been wasted and on that account he was entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 and Rs. 50,000 on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him and as such in all he was entitled to receive Rs. 2,50,000 from the opposite party along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of realization. The complaint was contested by the opposite party. In the written statement filed a preliminary objection was raised that the complainant is not a consumer as the dispute raised by him, related to the conduct of examination by the opposite party. On merits it was stated that the complainant had submitted his examination form along with the fee of Rs. 700, as stated in the complaint, for appearing in subject of M. A. Part-I English examination to be held in April, 2001 as a private candidate. It was further stated that examination form Sr. No. 460 submitted by the complainant was totally incomplete lacking material information on the basis of which eligibility of the complainant for issue of roll number for the examination in question could not be determined. It was specifically pleaded that in the middle of the form the complainant did not supply any information regarding the studies of B. A.-I, II and III. Instead he merely mentioned in the column of B. A. III," Result declared on 15 Jan. 2000, DMC certificate not received as yet. Therefore, Notification No. 13 dated 15. 1. 2000 attached". In this manner he left everything on hypothetical presumption that the opposite party will automatically determine the eligibility of the complainant on the basis of submission of the form as noticed above. It was further stated that in relation of B. A.-III, the result was declared by the opposite party on 15. 1. 2000. It was further stated that the opposite party after noticing the incomplete examination form as noticed above, had written letter No. 23278/ritu dated 23. 2. 2001 requiring the complainant to supply the information as under:

(3.) HOWEVER, the complainant did not response to the said letter and for want of necessary information he was not eligible to appear in M. A.-I English examination. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. Despite the above stated specific stand taken by the opposite party the District Forum without going into the question raised accepted the complaint by recording the following conclusion in para No. 8 of the order: