Proven deficiency is required to grant compensation under the Consumer Protection Act.

Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Member—The present appeal has been directed against the order dated 4.3.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter, to be referred as District Forum-I) in Complaint Case No. 356 of 2003, Ms. Anita Chhabra v. The Registrar, Punjab University.

2. The appellant/complainant has averred that the authorities/officials of respondent/O.P.-Punjab University with mala fide intentions incorporated 3rd Division instead of 2nd Division in the duplicate Degree Certificate for which she had applied on 5.8.2002, though, the said application was on the prescribed form and requisite fee of Rs. 155/- was duly paid by the applicant. The appellant/complainant has alleged it to be a deficiency in service and has prayed for a compensation of Rs. 5 lacs for misery and humiliation for this act of utter inefficiency by the O.P.-Punjab University. In addition a direction for departmental action against the concerned officials of Punjab University has also been prayed for.

3. In the reply filed by the respondent/O.P. the preliminary objection taken is that the complaint liable to be dismissed on the ground of concealment of material facts. The O.P. has termed the averments in the complaint as wild allegations without any evidence as no affidavit has been filed by the complainant. In the reply on merits, it is submitted that in the prescribed application form for issuance of duplicate certificate complete details were not filed in by the complainant. The column pertaining to the marks obtained, division, result of re-evaluation, if any, were left blank (copy of the form brought on record vide Annexure A-1). It is submitted by the respondent/O.P. that on 5.4.2002 Application Nos. 5219 and 5220 were submitted for issuance of duplicate certificate in M.A. Public Administration and History, respectively, the degree in question for which duplicate certificate was sought pertained to the year 1986 and on the basis of Gazette Notification of said examination the degree certificate was prepared. The O.P. has submitted that in the case of duplicate degree the applicant is required to fill the details in case if there is any change in his/her result due to re-evaluation. In the instant case since the complainant had left the relevant column blank leading to the presumption that she never applied for any re-evaluation and hence there is no change of result/division in her case. The respondent/O.P. has denied the allegations of mala fide intentions and has stated that Application Form Nos. 5219 and 5220 were submitted by the father of the complainant with a request that the said certificates were required urgently as the complainant intended to go abroad. The O.P. has submitted that urgency of the matter was evident from the fact that the duplicate degrees were received by hand through one of the employees of opposite party though in the normal practice the degree certificate is sent by post. The time period mentioned for the issuance of a duplicate certificate by the University is 20 days, however, in the instant case same were received by the complainant within 2 days. The O.Ps. have submitted that father of the complainant pleaded that the candidate does not have the information pertaining to columns left blank as it was an old case of 1986, hence on the basis of information available from the Gazette the result was prepared. Further, pertaining to Form No. 5219 (Annexure A-2) for M.A. (Pub. Admn.) the candidate had specifically stated in column that she had secured 2nd Division though it pertains to 1984 i.e. two years prior to this case which shows that complainant remembered regarding her degree of 1984 but did not have requisite information for the subsequent examination which she passed in 1986. The respondent/O.P. has averred that the mistake in mentioning 3rd Division instead of 2nd Division occurred due to material concealment of facts by the complainant and present compla