V. MURUGESAN VS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADRAS
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.A. Kader, President; Mr. R.N. Manickam,
Member; Dr. TMT. Ramani Mathuranayagam, Member
V. MURUGESAN—Appellant/Complainant
versus
REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS—Respondent/O.P.
A.P. No 382 of 1992—Decided on 26.10.1992

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :M/s. S. Raghunathan, Veeraraghavan & Yvanne Noronha, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. A.S. Poobalasubramanian, Advocate.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - deficiency in service Complainant applied for the degree certificate in 1982 & paid requisite fee - Degree certificate issued in 1992 after complainant moved District Forum - It was a gross deficiency in service on part of opp-part Compensation of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by Dist. Forum is meager. It was increased to Rs. 10,000/-
       (Para 5)
       Result: Appeal allowed partly.
       IMPORT ANT POINT
       Where the University took 10 years to issue degree certificate to complainant it was a case of gross deficiency in service on the part of university.

ORDER

Mr. Justice S.A. Kader, President — The appeal arises out of the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thanjavur dated 5.4.92 in O.P. 292/91. The complainant who has succeeded in part is the appellant.

2. The complainant has obtained his B.A. Degree in Economics in the examination held in 1979. He applied for the degree certificate in 1982 and paid the requisite fee. The certificate was not handed over to him On 16.12.91 he moved the District Forum, Thanjavur against University of Madras and the Principal, Raja Serfoji College, Thanjavur. After the filing of the complaint the degree certificate has been issued by the respondent/first opposite party on 20.1.92. It has, thus, taken 10 years for the University to issue the degree certificate.

3. The contention of the University is that certain particulars were called for and were not furnished in time.

4. The District Forum rejected the contention of the University and held that there was deficiency of service. It also held that the complainant’s future was affected thereby. It ordered compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 250/-.Aggrieved by the low amount of compensation awarded, the complainant has come in appeal. The University has not preferred any cross appeal against the awarding of compensation thereby admitting the deficiency of service on its part

5. The application for a degree certificate has been applied for in 1982 and the certificate has been granted to him after a decade in 1992. There can be no worse deficiency of service on the part of the University. The University is a responsible body entrusted with education of students and if the University itself is lethargic and indifferent in the issue of certificates, it is indeed a bad day for degree holders. No doubt the complainant has not satisfactorily established that he was deprived of any employment opportunities and the letter relied upon by him under Exhibit A14 is after complaint. However the fact remains that the University has taken 10 years to issue the certificate and the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- awarded appears to be meager. We are inclined to hold that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.

6. In the result the appeal is allowed in part, the order of the District Forum is modified and the compensation awarded is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal.

Appeal partly allowed.

–

Click Here to Read the rest of this document