moot material

8/2/2019 Moot Material

1/5

Sreedharan Nair N. vs Registrar, University Of Kerala on 31 May,

2001

Equivalent citations: I (2004) CPJ 27 NC

Bench: D Wadhwa, C Chaudhary, J M Members, R Rao, B Taimni

ORDER

C.L. Chaudhary, Member (J)

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission dated 5th May, 1994 in Complaint No. 79 of 1992 The brief facts

of the case are that the appellant was complainant before the State Commission. The

appellant was an evening-class regular student of three years LL.B. course in the Kerala

Law Academy Law College, Peroorkada, Thiruvananthapuram during the years 1987-90.

He completed the course after paying the full tuition fee and other fees in the college as

well as the examinations fee of all the three years to the University of Kerala. He was

declared pass in all 1st, 2nd and 3rd LL.B. examinations conducted by the University of

Kerala with Registered Nos. 701 (1987-88), 1669 (1988-89) and 2938 (1989-90). The

complainant submitted an application on 9.11.1990 with necessary fees to the University

of Kerala for obtaining Provisional LL.B. Degree Certificate. According to the appellant,

the university failed to supply the certificate. By a letter dated 23rd July, 1991, the

university informed the appellant that the qualifying examination passed by him (i.e.

the B.G.L. Degree Examination of the Mysore Universtiy) on the basis of which he had

undergone the LL.B. course in the Kerala Law Academy Law College, had not been

recognised by the University. The question of regularisation of the LL.B. examination

taken by him and issuing of provisional certificate etc. of the same to him could be

considered only on recognition of the qualifying degree awarded to him by the Mysore

University. The question of recognition of the B.G.L. Degree of the Mysore University

was still under the consideration of the University.

2. The grievance of the complainant was that the opposite party had caused

extraordinary, unreasonable and unfair delay in the matter of issuing of certificate for

which fees had been remitted. The appellant was deprived of opportunity to gainful

occupation by indifferent functioning of the opposite party. In these premises, a prayer

was made that the appellant may be awarded Provisional Degree Certificate of LL.B.,


2/5

and a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs for the loss of earning and mental agony suffered

which is split up as under :

3. The opposite party submitted before the State Commission that the Examination

Coordination Committee at its meeting held on 7.1.1994 recommended to refer thematter to Academic Council. The State Commission disposed of the complaint with the

following observations :

"A version has been filed by the University explaining the difficulties in awarding the

provisional degree certificate LL.B. However, it has come out now the question of

recognising the qualifying examination of the complainant is under consideration of the

University and the Examination Coordination Committee of the University at its

meeting held on 7.1.1994 recommended to refer the matter to the Academic Council.

The Counsel for the University also submitted that the matter will be placed before the

next Academic Council meeting. In the circumstances we do not think that there is any

justification to interfere with the matter at this stage. We have no doubt that the

Academic Council of the University will consider the case and pass the appropriate

orders. We make it clear that if the complainant is aggrieved by the order that may be

passed by the Academic Council he will be at liberty to approach this Commission again

with the above observations the complaint is dismissed. We direct the parties to bear

their respective costs."

4. At the time of hearing, the decision of the Meeting of the Academic Council dated

8.7.1994 was placed before us, which reads as under:

"The Academic Council considered along with the recommendations of the Standing

Committee, the question of releasing LL.B. mark list/provisional certificate of Sri N.

Sreedharan Nair, even though, his B.G.L. Degree has not been recognised by this

University and that he does not pass a recognised qualifying degree for taking LL.B. (3

years course) degree examination of this University.

Resolved that the LL.B. mark list/ provisional certificate of Sri Sreedharan Nair need

not be released since he is not qualified to take LL.B. (3 year Degree) Examination of

this University".

5. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties.


3/5

6. It was contended by the appellant that the Kerala University did not raise any

objection at the time of admission of the three years Law Degree Course. The Kerala

University allowed him to complete the three years course and he was declared pass in

all the years, i.e. 1st, 2nd and 3rd year. If B.G.L. Degree of the Mysore University had not

been recognised by the Kerala University for LL.B. course, the appellant should have

been informed at the time of his admission in the LL.B. course. He submitted that the

Kerala University may be directed to issue the Provisional LL.B. Degree to the appellant.

The appellant will suffer irreparable injury and substantial loss, in case the LL.B. Degree

is not awarded. He passed the LL.B. examination in 1991 and because of lack of

Provisional Certificate, he has not been able to practise so far. In case the Provisional

Certificate is not issued, all his labour done for completing the LL.B. course would go

waste. He spent three years in completing the course. It means that he has lost valuable

time all these years. In the alternative, it is prayed that he may be awardedcompensation of Rs. 5 lakhs which amount he would have earned from the profession.

7. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that the appellant

held a B.G.L. Degree from the Mysore University which was recognised as the qualifying

degree for the LL.B. course of the Kerala University.

8. Whether a course is to be recognised or not is for the Academic Council of the

University to decide and a student cannot have a legitimate expectation that his

qualifying degree from another University will be recognised. The action or inaction ofthe Academic Council of the University in recognising or the delay in doing so, cannot be

a subject matter of a consumer dispute. The decision was taken in the meeting of the

Academic Council held on 8.7.1994. It was also contended that thousands of application

forms are received by the University per year per examination and it is humanly

impossible to scrutinise each and every application. In any case, the appellant does not

come within the definition of 'consumer' as defined under Section 2(d) of the Consumer

Protection Act.

9. We have considered the relevant contentions of the parties.

10. In our opinion, the appellant's case has a merit. If the Kerala University had not

recognised B.G.L. Degree of the Mysore University as a qualifying degree for taking

LL.B. (three year course) degree examination of the Kerala University, the appellant

should have been told at the threshold, i.e. at the time of admission to the LL.B. Course


4/5

or at the time of writing the 1st year LL.B. examination. The appellant studied and

completed the three year course and was declared pass in all 1st, 2nd and 3rd LL.B.

examinations conducted by the University. The University allowed him to complete the

course. On completion of the course, the appellant demanded the provisional certificate

of LL.B. Degree and at the point of time, he was informed that he did not possess the

recognised qualifying degree for the LL.B. course. The appellant hired the services of the

University for consideraion for imparting education. In the case ofBhupesh Khurana

and Ors. v. Vishwa Budha Parishad and Ors.,reported as II (2001) CPJ 74 (NC)=2001

CCC 17 (NS), this Commission, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case ofBangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors.,reported as

1978 SC 548, this Commission held as under :

"Imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the

ambit of `Service' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees are paid for services

to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institutions. If there is

no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. The complainants

had hired the service of the respondent for consideration so they are consumers as

defined in the Consumer Protection Act."

11. The definition of 'deficiency' as contained in the Consumer Protection Act reads as

under:

"Section 2(g) : "Deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy

in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by

or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by

a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service."

12. It is a clear case of deficiency on the part of the University. The University allowed

him to complete the 3 years LL.B. course and thereafter declined to issue required

certificate. The appellant studied for three years and all the years have gone waste and

without any fruitful results. The appellant is a retired Government servant and he joinedthe LL.B. course-with the hope and the expectation that he would settle in the

profession. The claim of the appellant that the University may be directed to issue the

provisional certificate cannot be allowed. Whether a course is to be recognised or not is

for the Academic Council of the University to decide and no directions can be given in

this regard by this Commission.
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/427110/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/427110/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/427110/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/427110/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1149369/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1149369/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1149369/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1149369/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/427110/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/427110/


5/5

13. However, the appellant deserves to be compensated for the lapse and deficiency on

the part of the respondent.

14. The next question that arises for consideration is the quantum of compensation

which may be awarded to the appellant. The appellant has claimed Rs. 5 lakhs which issplit up as aforementioned. He studied the course in order to join the legal profession

after retirement for his earnings. He paid the tuition fee for all the three years and also

examination fee. The appellant has lost the status of becoming an Advocate and also the

earnings. Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, we are of the view that

it will be expedient and justice will be well met, if the appellant is awarded a

compensation of Rs. 50,000/- against all his claims.

15. As a result, the appeal is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.

50,000/- in all to the appellant within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy

of this order, failing which the appellant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12%

p.a. till the date of payment. The appellant shall also be entitled to costs of this appeal

which we quantify at Rs. 2,000/-. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

moot material

Documents