IMPORTANT POINT
Imparting of education by educational institutions for consideration would amount to services entitling student to maintain consumer complaint when his result was declared ‘failed’ by mistake in calculation of marks.

V. Bakthavatsalu, President — The case of the complainant is as follows :

The complainant, who is the resident of Mahe town was a registered student in Bachelor of Technology (EEE) in a self financed college under the Opposite Party university during the year 2000-04. He completed B. Tech (EEE) course in the college and he has paid full fees and other fees demanded by the university from time to time. He appeared for the final semester examinations during April/May 2004. The university announced the results in July. Surprisingly, the result issued by the university was false stating that the complainant has failed in a subject, ‘Communication Engineering’. Then, he applied for re-valuation and later found that it was a data entry error. This happended due to mere negligence and carelessness of the university staff. Even after receiving heavy amount as examination and other fees from time to time, the university failed to offer the services which the complainant is entitled to receive as a student after labeling as a failed student. The complainant was totally ostracized in the society and college. The complainant was always an academic topper in all the courses he completed. He was offered two prestigious assignments after completing the course. He lost his prestigious jobs and the complainant was not even able to pursue any higher education. His college is located at approximately 1400 km (Yanam) from his home town, Mahe. The complainant made nearly six up and down journeys after the final result for applying for re-valuation and for getting the certificates. The university authorities neither apologized nor speeded up the processing of his application. Finally, he received his Provisional Certificate after 4 trips and months after waiting in front of the university which is 670 kms. away from his home town. The complainant wasted nearly 6 to 7 months. The parents of the complainant and the complainant suffered heavy mental strains for the reasons for which they are not responsible. The university authorities spoiled his good future. The complainant received mere negligence and deficiency in service from the university. The hard work of the complainant for four years is drowned in water by the negligence of the university. Therefore, the Opposite Party may be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 40 lakhs for the mental agony, financial losses, sufferings and loss of professional opportunities. The complainant has also prayed for costs of Rs. 4,000/-.

2. The case of the Opposite Party is as follows :

The complaint is a malicious threat in abuse of process of law. The complainant completed B. Tech (EEE) of 2000-2004 and the result announced in July 2004 declared him as failed in Communication Engineering. The complainant applied for re-valuation and his corrected mark sheet was also issued to him. The Opposite Party denies the allegation that data entry error happened due to mere negligence and carelessness. The allegation that the complainant was always as academic topper in all courses and that he was offered prestigious assignments and jobs are not true. The Opposite Party denies the allegation that the complainant made six journeys between Yanam and Pondicherry for re-valuation and for getting certificates. The Opposite Party denies the allegation that the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 40 lakhs. The complainant appeared for 7 papers for examination in May 2004. His mark sheets were duly issued in time and declared him as failed as per statement of marks dated 19-7-2004. The complainant gave an application for re-valuation. The university had promptly acted and collected answer scripts for re-valuation purpose. It was noted that the Examiner of that answer paper had wrongly entered 12 instead of 34 marks in the relevant statement and subsequently, such numbers were shown in subsequent records. The university had corrected all relevant records and issued corrected statement of marks on 2-9-2004. The Opposite