1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).3163        OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.3374 of 2008)

RANCHI UNIVERSITY ...Appellant(s)

                VERSUS

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.