Fatehgarh Sahib District Commission Holds Punjabi University Liable For Failure To Dispatch Academic Transcript Within Reasonable Time

Brief Facts:

The daughter of Complainant completed a Master of Science in Information Technology through distance education from Punjabi University (“University”) in April 2016. His daughter, now residing in Canada on a work permit, required her academic transcript for her Permanent Residency (“PR”) application. The Complainant applied for the transcript to the University, filled out the necessary forms, and paid the required fees totalling Rs. 25,337/-.

Subsequently, he submitted the completed application form along with copies of her daughter's degree details and original payment receipts to the Examination Department. It was expected for the transcript to be dispatched within seven days. Given the University's distance of approximately 70 kilometres from the Complainant's residence, the Complainant faced logistical challenges in frequent visits. Consequently, he took help from this friend who made periodic visits to the University to inquire about the transcript's status. However, the University made recurrent responses stating there were delays due to pending payments from the company responsible for transmitting transcripts abroad. Faced with prolonged waiting, the Complainant's daughter opted to submit her PR application without the University's transcript. Therefore, the Complainant applied for a refund of the transcript fees, but he didn't receive any refund from the University.

Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against the University. In response, the University contended that despite the transcript being ready for dispatch, delays occurred due to the global COVID-19 pandemic, which hindered operations, including flight availability and parcel bookings.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted that the University argued that the transcript was prepared and ready for dispatch, but due to the COVID-19 pandemic and administrative constraints, it was dispatched two months later. It noted that the Complainant's daughter already applied for PR without waiting for the transcript.

The District Commission held that the University promised for the transcript to be delivered within seven days. It rejected the reasons referred by the University for the delay, specifically the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and administrative exigencies. It held that the University didn't present concrete evidence to suggest the suspension of overseas logistic services due to the pandemic. Consequently, the District Commission held that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the University in dispatching the transcript late.

Referring to the definition of 'Deficiency' under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the District Commission held that any fault or shortcoming in the quality or manner of service provision constitutes deficiency. In light of the delayed dispatch of the transcript, the District Commission held that the University failed to meet the expected standard of service.

Consequently, the District Commission directed the University to pay a composite compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the order's certified copy.