Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President;
Mr. Damodar Thanvi, Member
KUMARI SEEMA BHATIA—Complainant
versus
REGISTRAR, RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY—Opp. Party
Complaint Case 91/90—Decided on 28.10.1991
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. Manohar Bhatia, Advocate.
For the Opp. Party :Mr. Punit Sharma, Advocate.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12/17 - Complainant appeared in 2nd year (T.D.C. (Science) examination - In the result she was declared eligible for supplementary examination - She deposited fee for re-evaluation of paper - Grievance raised that there was delay on the part of opp. party in informing the result of re-evaluation as a result of which complainant had to appear in supplementary examination - Whether, examination, re-evaluation of answer book constitute service within the meaning of section 2 (1)(o) of the Act? No.
Held: The question is whether the complainant can be said to be a consumer and further that conducting of the examination and declaration of the result thereof after re-evaluation of the answer books the opposite party is said to have rendered deficient service when, the re-evaluation fee is charged from the candidate who applies for reevaluation. Having considered the definition of service which is inclusive one also contained in section 2(1)(o) of the Act, we are of opinion that examination, re-evaluation of answer books, declaration of result and re-evaluation of answer books do not constitute "service" within the meaning of section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Payment of there evaluation fee by a candidate for the purpose of reevaluation of answer books does not mean that the candidate has hired the service of the opposite party. (para 9)
IMPORTANT POINT
Examination re-evaluation of answer book declaration of result do not constitute service within the meaning of section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act.
Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President — Kumari Seema Bhatia has filed this complaint under Section 12 read with Section 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act” herein) against the Registrar, Rajasthan, University, Jaipur on 25.4.1990 for the reliefs mentioned in the relief para whereby claiming a sum of Rs. 9,97,200/- from the opposite party. It has been alleged by the complainant that she appeared in Second Year (T.D.C. (Science) Examination from Lal Bahadur Shastri College, Jaipur held by the Rajasthan University. Her roll number was 13331 from 1989 examination. In the result she was declared eligible for supplementary examination. After the declaration of the result in accordance with the rules she submitted an application on 2.8.1989 after deposit Rs. 100/- for re-evaluation of the answer books of Chemistry II and III papers in which she is said to have obtained 6 and 9 marks respectively. For deposit of Rs. 100/- for the purpose of re-evaluation receipt No. 49425 was issued to her. As she was not shown the result of the re-evaluation she filled the supplementary examination form and deposited the fees. The supplementary examination was held in the second/third week of October, 1989. The results were declared in Nov./Dec, 1989 in which the complainant was declared successful. The complainant has stated that as the result of re-evaluation was not intimated to the complainant in time, she had to appear at the supplementary examination on account of which she had suffered mental torture and loss in studies of the Third Year. The result of the re-evaluation was conveyed to the complainant vide letter No. 10229-19 dated 16.2.1990 in which it was written that her marks in Chemistry III paper have been increased from 9 to 15 and she is declared pass. The case of the complainant is that as the result of the re-evaluation was conveyed after considerable delay, she had to appear at the supplementary examination for which she suffered mentally and could not study in the Third Year. The members of the family of the complainant were also put to harassment and so she is entitled to compensation. According to her the service rendered after declaration of result in respect of re-evaluation was deficient. She was claimed the following reliefs :
ATAH PARIVADI NIMNA PRAKAR SE VAJIB MUAVAJA KI MANG KARTIHAI—
(1) PRARTHI PARIVADI DWARA POORVAMULYANKAN KI FEES HETU 100/- RUPAYA WA SUPPLEMENTARY PARIKSHA KI FEES KE 100/- RUPAYA IS PRAKAR KUL 200/ RUPAYA AVAM SUPPLEMENTARY MAI GHOSHIT VISHYO KO PADNE HETU TUTOR PUR 3 MANH KA KHARCHA 6,000/- RUPAYE IS PRAKAR KUL 6,200/- RUPAYE KHARCH KI YE GAYE TO PARIVADI PRAPT KARNE KI ADHIKARI HAI.
(2) PRARTHI YA PARIVADI APNI TRITYA VARSH KI PADAI NIYAMIT ROOP SE NAH1 KAR PAAI AVAM USKE NUKSAN KO POORA KARNE KE LIYE 8 MANH TAK TUTOR RAKHNE PUR 16,000/- RUPAYE KHARCH KIYE GAYE ATAH PRARTHI YA UKT RASHI PRAPT KARNE KA ADHIKARI.
(3) PARIVADI KO MASIK UTPEEDAN KASHT WA KATHINAI SAHAN KARNIPADI HAI JISKA KHAMIYAJA MUDRA MEI VARNIT KARNA SAMBHAV NAHI HAI PARANTU PHIR BHI MERI STITHI ME PRARTHIYA 9,00,000/- (NAU LAKH RUPAYE) KI MANG KARTI HAI.
(4) PARIVADI KE SATH SATH PARIVADI KE PARIVARJANO KO BHI KAFT MANSIK UTPEEDNA WA KASHTA UTHANE PADE ISKI KSHTIPURTI HETU PARIVADI 75,000/- (PACHAHTAR HAZAR RUPAYE) KI MANG KARTI HAI.
IS PRAKAR KUL 9,97,200/- (NAU LAKH SATYAVAN HAZAR DO SAU RUPAYE) PAVADI KO DILAYE JAVE.
2. With the complaint she submitted photo stat copies of Second Year TDC mark-sheet 1989, receipt for 100/- mark-sheet of supplementary examination letter dated 16.2.1990 from Assistant Registrarand re-evaluation mark-sheet of Second Year TDC.
3. The opposite party Registrar, University of Rajasthan opposed the complaint. He raised certain preliminary objections about the maintainability of the complaint. It was pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer. The dispute raised is not a complaint as defined in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that the University does not render any s
