Date:04/04/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/04/04/stories/2006040416400700.htm

Tamil Nadu - Chennai

Madurai Kamaraj University asked to pay compensation

K.T. Sangameswaran

For delay in issuing mark sheet

CHENNAI: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered the Director of Distance Education (DDE), Madurai Kamaraj University, to pay a practising lawyer Rs.5,000 as compensation for mental agony caused by the unexplained delay in issuing him the mark sheet.

K. Gnana Sambandan of Surveyor Colony, Madurai, complained to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai, that in May 1999, he passed the examination conducted by the university for post-graduate diploma in labour law and administrative law.

Besides going to the university, he sent a representation to the Director of Distance Education (cited as third opposite party) to issue the mark sheet. But there was no response.

He also sent a lawyer's notice. When he went to the certificate section, he was told that the name of a woman was found against his roll number.

The Registrar, cited as the first opposite party, filed version, which was adopted by the Controller of Examinations, second opposite party, and the DDE.

The university contended that the Consumer Protection Act was not applicable to universities.

Even as the case was pending before the district forum, the complainant's mark sheet was furnished to him on February 19, 2001. Following this, the forum dismissed the complaint as infructuous. Aggrieved at the non-awarding of any compensation for the mental agony he suffered for over 15 months, the complainant filed an appeal.

The Bench comprising Justice K. Sampath, president, and R.Vanaroja, Member, cited an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which held that imparting education by educational institutions for a consideration came under the ambit of service as defined under the CPA. The DDE was duty-bound to give the mark list to the complainant within a reasonable time. The complainant's repeated representations to the DDE were of no avail. He should have suffered owing to some mistake committed by the staff of the Directorate of Distance Education.

The delay on the part of the DDE was unexplained and inexplicable. Under such circumstances, the Bench said, the complainant should receive some compensation towards the mental agony.