DATAPRO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY vs RAJINDER SINGH SALUJA

THIS is an appeal against the order of 12th March, 1992 of the State Commission, Maharashtra in Complaint No. 137 of 1992. The Appellant before us was the Opposite Party before the State Commission while the Respondent herein was the Complainant before it. They will be referred as Complainant and Opposite Party respectively in this order.

THE appeal has been filed after a delay of 59 days. The Appellant has explained at length the circumstances in which this was delayed and sought for condonation of the same. We condone the delay. The Complainant was a student in the Opposite Party''s institute Datapro Information Technology for training in Advanced Diploma in Computer Software System Analysis and Design. He joined the institute in June, 1987 and paid the prescribed fee. On completion of the training it was open to the students-trainees to take the examination to be conducted by the Maharashtra State Technical Education Board. He appeared for the written paper in February, 1988 for the examination conducted by the Board. However, the date of viva examination was not communicated to him by the Opposite Party. As such he lost a valuable year of his career and suffered financially.

THE State Commission came to the finding that it was the duty of the Opposite Party to intimate the students appearing through their institution the dates of the written and oral examination. As the training classes in the Institute are conducted between 6.15 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. three times a week the students can be contacted only by post for any communication after the training period is over. Further since the course in which examination was to be held is not much advertised in the Press like the S.S.C. and H.S.C. and the University examinations, it was incumbent on the Opposite Party to intimate the dates of written and oral examinations to every student who had paid the fees of their training. As such the State Commission awarded Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the Respondent-Complainant.

THE Appellant-Opposite Party has contested the order of the State Commission, inter alia, by pointing out that it had duly displayed the circular of the Education Board on the Notice Board indicating the dates of the written and oral examination. At the communication from the Board of Technical Education, Government of Maharashtra to the Principal of the Appellant-Opposite Party-Datapro Information Technology advised the latter that "the detailed programme of project work and viva examination may also be displayed on the Notice Board of your institute for the information of all concerned". In pursuance of this advice the notice regarding the date of viva examination was duly displayed on the Notice Board of the institution. There was no obligation on the part of the institution to inform each student individually about the examination programme including the date of viva examination.

IT would be evident from above that there has been no deficiency on the part of the Appellant-Opposite Party. There was no legal obligation on him to communicate individually the dates of viva examination to each student. In fact such a course of action may also be impracticable where the students are large in number. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the State Commission. There is no order as to costs.