Imparting education by educational institutions for consideration falls within the ambit of service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, and the university was duty bound to provide the mark sheet within a reasonable time.

Thiru Justice K. Sampath, President—The complainant in COP No. 43/2000 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai, is the appellant. His case was as follows : He joined Post Graduate Diploma in Labour Laws and Administrative Laws in the opposite party University under Distance Education for the academic year 1998-99. In the examination conducted in May 1999 he passed in Second Class. He went to Madurai from Madras where he was practising as Lawyer to collect the mark sheet in October. He sent a representation to the 3rd opposite party on 14.12.1999 to issue the mark sheet. There was no response. He sent a lawyer’s notice on 19.1.2000. He went to the Certificate Section. He was told that for his Roll Number, some other lady’s name was found. Even after this the mark sheet was not given. Alleging inaction and dereliction of duty on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint came to be filed for a direction to the opposite parties to issue the mark sheets after removing the difficulties in issuing the mark list and to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and for costs.

2. The 1st opposite party filed version and it was adopted by opposite parties 2 and 3, contending that the Consumer Protection Act was not applicable to Universities imparting education and conducting examinations.

3. When the matter was pending before the District Forum, on the 19th of February, 2001, the mark list of the complainant was furnished to the complainant through his Counsel. The District Forum dismissed the complaint as having become infructuous.

4. Aggrieved by the non-awarding of any compensation for the mental agony caused to him for over 15 months, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant.

5. The opposite parties took the stand that the complainant could not be a consumer vis-a-vis the opposite parties. But that position is no longer a good law in view of the decision of the National Commission in Bupesh Khurana & Ors. v. Viswa Buddha Parishad & Ors., 2000 (3) CPR 49 (NC), wherein it has been held that imparting education by the educational instiutions for consideration falls within the ambit of service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The 3rd opposite party was duty bound to give the mark list to the complainant within a reasonable time. Results were declared in October 1999. The complainant had been making representation after representation to the 3rd opposite party. But it was no avail. At some point of time he went to the Certificate Section of the 3rd opposite party to collect the mark list. He was told that for his Roll number, there was some other lady’s name. The complainant should have suffered on account of some mistake on the part of the staff of the 3rd opposite party. For the results declared in October 1999, till the complainant filed his complaint and quoted a decision on 19th of February, 2001 the delay on the part of the 3rd opposite party is totally unexplained and inexplicable. Absolutely no reason whatoever was given in the version filed by the 1st opposite party and adopted by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. In such circumstances we are of the view that the complainant should receive some compensation towards mental agony and anxiety caused to him. We fix the quantum at Rs. 5,000 payabe by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant as compensation.

6. The appeal shall stand allowed to the extent indicated above.

Appeal allowed.

–