Educational boards owe a duty of care to ensure accurate publication of examination results. Negligent evaluation is compensable if it inflicts mental distress, but compensation must be grounded in proven emotional or psychological impact rather than speculative assessments of career loss or educational quality.

J U D G M E N T & O R D E R (CAV)

Heard Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, assisted by Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The instant RFA is filed against the Judgment & Order of the learned Senior Civil Judge-IV, Aizawl District, in Civil Suit No. 114/2015, dated 26.08.2019, wherein the appellants were directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only to the plaintiff/instant respondent within 3 months from this date of order as compensation for the injury/damage caused to the plaintiff/instant respondent due to negligence act. The defendants/instant appellants were further directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- (10,000+5,000) as pleader’s fee and cost of the suit with an interest thereon at the rate of 10% to the plaintiff/instant respondent from the date of the judgment and order to the date of realization.

3. The brief facts of the case, leading to filing the present appeal is that the present respondent, who was the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 114/2015, had approached the trial court for payment of adequate compensation by stating that he had appeared in the matriculation examination conducted in the year 2015 and being a competitive student, who had always been outstanding among his peers, he was expecting to pass on distinction, however, when the results were published, he had secured only 65 marks in the science subject. Thereafter, being extremely aggrieved, he had applied for re-evaluation of his marks, and subsequently, his marks in the science subject was improved from 65 marks to 82 marks. However, because his previous marks of 65 in the science subject, he did not get admission at St. Paul’s Higher Secondary School and by the time his marks were re-evaluated, scoring 82 marks in the science subject, the admission process at St. Paul’s Higher Secondary School in science stream was already closed. Because of him not getting admission into St. Paul’s Higher Secondary School which had always been his ambition, as he felt that this school provided the best education in the State of Mizoram and would help him to achieve his future career, he had to take admission at Serkawn Higher Secondary School, Lunglei which he felt was below the standard of education imparted by the St. Paul’s Higher Secondary School.

The present respondent, thus being highly aggrieved by the fact that he could not get admitted into St. Paul’s Higher Secondary School, had filed the Civil Suit against the present appellants, praying for monetary compensation as hereunder:

i) to be paid Rs. 3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs) for the injury and damage suffered as a result of breach of duty in erroneously giving him less marks than what he deserved when the results were first published.

ii) Rs. 30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand), along with 12% interest per month from the date the notice was served, for all the expenses incurred by the present respondent in travelling and staying in Aizawl in connection with the re-evaluation of his answer paper.

iii) Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs) as compensation for pain, shock, suffering, hardships, and inconveniences suffered by the present respondent.

iv) Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs) as punitive damages.

v) Rs. 40,000/- (rupees forty thousand) for the legal expenses incurred.

4. It was also the case of the present respondent that though the present respondent’s father had tried to obtain the answer sheet through RTI, the