COMPENSATION TO BE PAID BY ERRING OFFICER WHO CAUSES HARASSMENT 

A student is awarded with compensation to the tune of rupees 20,00000/- [twenty lacs ]by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh vide its order dated Ist Oct.2008 in complaint case no 27/sc/2006 between Kaushal Mani Tripathi V Vice Chancellor,Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University,Faizabad &others for with holing the result of a young boy of M Sc 2nd year student for long 5 and a half  years ruining his career and employment opportunities by the University and College .No plea by the university of being statutory body worked before the court, neither college or University could be spared of their responsibility. The Principal of the college was personally held liable jointly with the University to pay the damages to the student for the mental agony which he might have suffered all these five and half years.

It is pertinent to mention that this is not the first ruling of this kind, such ruling was made as back as in 1993 by the Apex court in the case of Luck now Development Authority V M.G.Gupta wherein justice R.M.Sahay in his historical judgment ordered to fix the responsibility of the officers responsible for causing harassment and agony to the complainant. It was pin pointed in clear terms in the order that the officers in the  public bodies sit over the files where paper do not move from one desk to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous consideration leaving the common man helpless and shocked. Under the circumstances in the case before the Apex court, Justice Sahay expected the consumer courts and commissions to order for payment of damages by the erring officers to the complainant who has been harassed in their hands.

The present case in hands ironically is from the very same state of Uttar Pradesh where Kaushal Mani Tripathi had failed in his 2^nd year M.Sc. math’s examination .He was allowed to re-appear in the said paper on 29^th oct 1999 but the result was never declared for five and half years Tripathi ran from pillar to post ,wrote number of letters to the Principal of the Maharani Lal Kuanawari Mahavidyalaya ,Baharampur and Registrar of Dr Ram Manoher Lohia Avadh University, the University of Faizabad but none even acknowledged the receipt of his letters when contacted .Finally Tripathi filed a writ petition before the High court of Allahabad on 24^th may 2004 and University and College were directed to declare the result of Tripathi immediately. Very interestingly, authorities did not bather for the order of the Honorable .High court even and Tripathi had to file contempt case when court summoned the authorities and finally result was declared.

Tripathi filed  a case for compensation before the commission for an amount of Rs 30,00000/-President of the Commission Justice Bhanwar singh in its order dt 1^st oct 2008 awarded an amount of Rs 20,00000/ to Tripathi and also held responsible Principal of the college who lacks the quality of a teacher even, much less of a principal.

Number of pleas was taken by the contesting university and college against this complaint stating therein that complainant is not a consumer under the consumer protection act as no services have been rendered by the university, it has done its statutory duty being a statutory body. College is not deficient in providing services of imparting education and in the present case they are not deficient in services .Further, authorities also challenged the complaint on the ground that he cannot be allowed to come down from the higher court to lower court for his grievance as the matter had been dealt with by the Honorable High court of Allahabad and now commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the same matter being much lower court. It is also contended by the authority that Tripathi has not written his roll number clearly on his attendance sheet and his answer book was rejected as unacceptable.

Commission after hearing all the arguments put forth by the defendants came to the conclusion that Tripathi is a consumer under the specific act .An educational institute while imparting education renders service. Permitting the candidate to enter into an examination and thereafter declaring their results are an integral part of that service. Commission further rejected the plea and expressed –“We fail to understand as to how State commission is a lower court from the High court. The High court has a jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 or 227 under the constitution of India ,the jurisdiction which is not exercised by the forum or the commission But at the same time the High court has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under section 17 of the consumer protection act for awarding damages. Once the High court has already found fault with the authorities for not declaring the result in time,Tripathi has now all the rights to ask for damages for already established facts on record..Not only that, authorities have miserably failed to establish their stand that roll number was not clearly written and the answer sheets were unacceptable as no attendance sheet could be produced before the court as cogent evidence.

On merits, commission observed that not one authority was sympathized with the complainant although there was a large fleet of personnel in the college and university to rationalize as to why a serious wrong was being caused to the complainant who had appeared in the exam .The complainant after obtaining the degree of MSc. Could have found job and earned his livelihood. Instead, university authorities made a mockery of the averment of complainant that he could have earned laces of rupees had the result been declared in time. The authorities forget that complainants must have spent a lot of money in roaming around the offices colleges and university contacting his lawyers while perusing the case in the High court as well as before the commission

Further, the Principal of the college has not come forward to say a single word in favor or against his pupil who has suffered so much and had met this ill fate. He has not bothered to help this complainant nor he ever advised him to take a particular course of action .He did not dispatch even a single letter pointing out what was required .The Principal failed to appear before the commission and defend serious allegations of his inaction. He is callous towards the complainant by not coming forward to help him out; he failed to perform his sincerest part of his pious duty towards the student

With these observations commission slapped damages on the Principal as well as on University jointly to be paid to the consumer   

                                         -

To supplement with

Luck now Development Authority V M.G.Gupta[1994] I SC Cases 243,civil appeal no 6237 of 1991 and 16842of 1992 decided on Nov. 5,1993

“When public servant by malafide,oppressive and capricious acts in performance of official duty causes injustice ,harassment to common man and renders the state or its instrumentality liable to pay damages to the person aggrieved from public fund, State or instrumentality is duty bound to later on recover the amount of compensation so paid from the public servant concerned”

Further “No functionary in exercise of statutory can claim immunity except to the extend protected by the statute itself. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressive are accountable for their behavior before commission or the court entrusted with responsibility of maintaining the rule of law ’’             

 

Previous

Next