Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.A.A. Khan, President &
Mrs. Sushma Tanwar, Member
REGISTRAR, RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY —Appellant
versus
MANISH SRIVASTAVA —Respondent
Appeal No. 1196 of 1996—Decided on 23.2.2004
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Absent.
Matters relating to the evaluation of answer books do not fall within the purview of the summary jurisdiction of redressal agencies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
Re-evaluation - University Examination - The court held that matters relating to the evaluation of answer books do not fall within the purview of the summary jurisdiction of redressal agencies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent requested re-evaluation of his English paper in the B.Sc. first year examination, but the appellant could not trace the answer book. The Forum accepted the complaint and directed the appellant to award marks on an average basis. The appellant appealed against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the re-evaluation of answer books did not fall within the purview of 'consumer dispute' and the definition of 'service' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Issues: The issue was whether the re-evaluation of answer books fell within the purview of the summary jurisdiction of redressal agencies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that matters relating to the evaluation of answer books do not fall within the purview of the summary jurisdiction of redressal agencies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with costs on parties throughout.
Mr. Justice M.A.A. Khan, President—Heard.
The relevant facts in this case are that the respondent had appeared at the B.Sc. first year examination held by the appellant University in the year 1992. He had secured 20 marks only in his English paper. The respondent required the appellant to re-evaluate his answer book. The appellant however, could not re-evaluate his answer book as the same could not be traced by the employees of the appellant in their office. The appellant appears to have given an option to the respondent to either appear at the main examination next year or in the special examination to be held by the appellant University in due course of time. The respondent did not exercise the option in any way and approached the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The Forum, vide its order under appeal, accepted the complaint of the respondent and directed the appellant to award marks in English paper of the B.Sc. first year examination, 1992 to the complainant on average basis. The average basis was to be adopted with reference to the marks obtained by the respondent in other subjects in the same examination. Aggrieved by such order of the Forum the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant has rightly invited our attention to our decision dated 17.10.2000 made in Revision Petition Nos. 27/2000 and 28/2000 and submitted that relying upon the decision of the National Commission in First Appeal No. 138/1992, Seema Bhatia v. Registrar, Rajasthan University, decided on 12.4.1993, we had held that matters relating to evaluation of answer books do not fall within the purview of the summary jurisdiction of the redressal agencies under the C.P. Act, 1986 (the Act). On examining the facts of the two cases we are satified and accordingly hold that the question of re-evaluation of the answer books of the respondent complainant did not fall within the purview of “consumer dispute” and definition of “service” as given in Sections 2(1)(o) of the Act.
3. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed with cost on parties throughout.
Appeal allowed.
