BANGALORE UNIVERSITY Vs. DATTATRI S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition has a somewhat chequered background. The son of the respondent/complainant had appeared in the III Year B.Sc. Examination conducted by the Bangalore University during the month of April, 1995. When the results were declared he was found to have failed in the examination. The son of the respondent/complainant apprehending that his answers to question papers on the subject of Computer Science and Physics have not been properly evaluated, applied for their re -evaluation on payment of the prescribed fee of Rs. 401. It was then that the petitioner/University detected that there indeed had been a mistake by the tabulator, who instead of 50 marks had recorded 05 marks against the subject of Computer Science. Had the marks been recorded as 50 at the first instance, the son of the respondent/complainant would have been declared pass. Even this mistake was detected quite late, which necessitated the candidate to apply and appear for the supplementary examinations. Contending that, he been declared pass soon after the results of the examinations held in April, 1995, he would have been in a position to secure a job and the delay in publishing the results deprived him of this opportunity and also caused mental agony and hardship. Alleging deficiency in service, the respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore Urban District Seshadripuram, Bangalore (District Forum for short), which, however, was dismissed by the District Forum holding that the son of the complainant was not a consumer.

(2.) AGGRIEVED thereupon, the respondent/complainant filed an appeal before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (State Commission for short), who relying upon the judgment rendered in the case of Bhupesh Khurana v. Vishwa Budda Parishad,2001 2 CPJ 74 holding the complainant to be a consumer, remanded the matter back to the District Forum for adjudication on merit. In the second round of litigation, the District Forum held the petitioner/University deficient in service and ordered the payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the complainant with cost of Rs. 5,000. The petitioner/University challenged the award of the District Forum before the State Commission, who vide the order impugned has rejected the contention of the petitioner/University that they do not render any service in the process of conducting an examination and, therefore, the complainant was not a consumer. Their plea that it was not the University but an institution affiliated to the University had imparted the education and, therefore, there is no direct relationship and accordingly no service even otherwise was rendered by the University was not accepted by the State Commission. The State Commission in its order has held that when examination fee for the purpose of conducting examination, which includes evaluation of the answer papers and declaration of results, has been accepted, it would amount to rendering service for a consideration. Under the circumstances, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner/University, thereby confirming the order passed by the District Forum.

(3.) IT is in this backdrop that this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/University. When the matter was earlier heard by this Commission on the 30th of September, 2005, it was admitted only on the quantum of compensation. When notice was issued to the respondent/complainant he has preferred not to appear and has sent his reply to the revision petition restricting his response to the quantum of compensation. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. While admitting that the tabulator indeed had committed a mistake which was inadvertent because of which the candidate was declared to have failed even though he had actually secured sufficient marks for being declared pass, the learned Counsel has argued that both the Fora below have gravely erred in rejecting the persistent plea of the petitioner/University/opposite party that they do not render any service and, therefore, the complainant would not fall in the category of a consumer to invoke the jurisdiction of the consumer Forum. In support of his contention, he has firstly referred to Section 79 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, which reads as under: