Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
T.S. Doabia,A.K. Goel, JJ.
University Of Jammu & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Brinder Nath & Ors. - Respondent
CIMA No. 60/1995
Decided On : 20 May, 1999
UNIVERSITY OF JAMMU V. BRINDER NATH - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SECTION 2(D)(G)(O), 4 - CONSUMER DISPUTE - SERVICE - UNIVERSITY CONDUCTING EXAMINATION - NOT A SERVICE FOR HIRE - CANDIDATE NOT A CONSUMER - DELAY AND LACHES - CORPORATE BODY SUED IN ITS CORPORATE NAME - JURISDICTION OF CONSUMER COMMISSION.
Fact of the Case:
The University of Jammu challenged an order passed by the J&K State Consumers Redressal Commission directing it to pay compensation to a complainant who alleged that the University failed to consider his internal assessment and wrongly declared him unsuccessful in an examination. The complainant claimed that he was a regular student and the college authorities failed to send his complete case to the University, resulting in his failure.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the University was not sued in its corporate name, which was a mandatory requirement under the Jammu and Kashmir University Act. The complaint was also highly belated, as the complainant waited for almost 10 years before approaching the Commission. Moreover, the court found that the act of the University in conducting examinations, evaluating answer papers, and announcing results did not amount to rendering service for hire, and therefore, the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the University was properly sued in its corporate name. 2. Whether the complaint was barred by delay and laches. 3. Whether the University's act of conducting examinations, evaluating answer papers, and announcing results constituted a service for hire, making the complainant a consumer. 4. Whether the complainant had made out a case on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A corporate body must be sued in its corporate name as per the relevant statute. 2. Proceedings initiated after a long delay may be considered as suffering from delay and laches, and the period of limitation under ordinary law can be a reasonable guide in determining the delay. 3. The act of a University or Board in conducting examinations, evaluating answer papers, and announcing results does not amount to rendering service for hire, and a candidate appearing for such examinations is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. 4. The complainant failed to prove that he was a regular student and that the University was remiss in its obligation to consider his internal assessment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal filed by the University of Jammu, set aside the order of the Consumer Commission, and directed the complainant to withdraw the amount deposited by the University in pursuance of the Commission's directions.
2. The circumstances under which the complaint to be filed before the Commission be noticed.
Mr. Brinder Nath-respondent No. 1 figured as a complainant before the Commission. His plea was that he was a regular student of M. A. M. College, Jammu in the academic year 1982-83. On account of unavoidable circumstances he stated that he was unable to appear in the examination. He was short of lectures also. He was again admitted in the college. He completed the shortage of lectures. His admission form was said to have been forwarded to the University with a view to enable him to take part in the process of examination for the Session 1983-84. It is stated that a certificate to the effect that the respondent No. 1 had completed his lecturers was issued in his favour. It is stated that the respondent No. 1 was a regular student of the college. The college authorities it is stated were under an obligation to give this information and send his complete case to the University authorities.
3. The respondent No. 1 took part in the examination. When his result was declared the was among the unsuccessful candidates. Reason for his being declared unsucessful vas that he fell short of few marks. On coming to know of his result the petitioner submitted a representation to the University authorities and also to the Principal of the College. In para 6 of the complaint, it is submitted that the Principal of the M. A. M. College Jammu wrote several letters to the University authorities wherein he (principal) clearly admitted that it was the fault of the college authorities that the internal assessment could not be sent to the University authorities in time and the complainant was not at fault. It was stated that the benefits of internal assessment was required to be given to the complainant and he should be declared successful in the examination.
4. The grievance of the respondent No. 1 is that the University authorities did not take any action in the matter for almost 5 years. It is stated that even though under the University Regulation 6, his case was required to be settled within a period of six months but the University slept over the matter for a long period as indicated above. The respondent No. 1 is said to have made many complaints to the University authorities. The last representation is said to have been submitted on 12th September, 1992. As there was failure on part of the University authorities to take notice of the internal assessment made by the Principal of the College and as these marks were not included, he was wrongly declared as unsuccessful. It was in these premises the complainant respondent No. 1 claimed a sum of Rs. 9.5 lakhs as compensation.
5. That respondent No. 1-complainant did not implead University of Jammu as a respondent in the complaint. The complaint was filed against the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar and the Controller of Examination of the University. These three officers figured as respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the complaint. The principal of the College figured as respondent No. 4.
6. Objections were preferred on behalf of the respondents. Preliminary objections were taken. These were to the effect that the complaint has been filed after a delay of 10 years. It was also specifically pleaded that the University of Jammu being a Statutory Authority has to be arrayed as respondent in its Corporate name. This having not been done, it was urged that complaint be dismissed.
7. On merits it was stated that the complainant appeared in the examination in the year 1984 as a private student. It was pleaded that in case the respondent-
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
