Ranchi University vs Sneh Kumar

SNEH KUMAR ...Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Leave granted.

This is an appeal for setting aside order

dated 3.8.2007 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission (for short, "the National Commission") whereby

the revision preferred by the appellant against the order

passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

(for short, "the State Commission") for payment of

Rs.50,000/- to the respondent by way of compensation on

account of delay in the issue of provisional certificate of

M.Sc. was dismissed.

The respondent passed M.Sc. (Mathematics)

from the appellant-University in 1991. He filed complaint

under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for

2

short, "the Act") alleging deficiency in service by

asserting that even though he had deposited the requisite

fee, the appellant-University did not issue M.Sc.

certificate. The appellant did not appear to contest the

complaint. By an ex parte order dated 26.11.2002, District

Consumer Forum, Lohardaga (for short, "the District Forum")

ordained the appellant to issue certificate to the

respondent and also pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The

State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant

and directed it to comply with the order of the District

Forum within three weeks.

The National Commission agreed with the

appellant that various statutory functions performed by it

does not come within the purview of the term 'service' as

defined under the Act but held that its failure to supply

provisional certificate justified the award of compensation

to the respondent.

We have heard learned counsel for the

appellant. It is not in dispute that the respondent is

employed as a teacher in Mathematics in Agarwal Mahila

Mahavidyalaya. Such an appointment could not have been

possible without producing evidence of his having secured

post-graduate degree. Therefore, the appellant's plea that

the respondent had demanded duplicate provisional

3

certificate appears to be plausible and the consumer foras

committed serious error by ordering payment of compensation

to the respondent by assuming that the appellant had not

issued the provisional certificate in the first instance.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The

impugned order as also those passed by the District Forum

and the State Commission are set aside.

(G.S. SINGHVI,J.)

(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY,J.) NEW DELHI, APRIL 08, 2011.