Jamia student's Rs 35 cr compensation claim rejected by HC

The court observed that the student has not questioned that he had failed in the first year annual examination held in January 2013 and January 2014.

New Delhi, Sep 10: A Jamia Millia Islamia University student's plea claiming a compensation of Rs 35 crore on various grounds has been rejected by the Delhi High Court.

One of the reasons that the student had cited was that the re-evaluation result for an exam, in which he had failed, was not declared on time.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Navin Chawla upheld the single judge's order observing that the "claim for damages on this account is clearly unsustainable and ill-founded".

"As per the result declared in April-May, 2013, the appellant had failed. It was for the appellant to prepare himself for re-examination to be held in January 2014, even if he had applied for re-evaluation. The appellant could not have assumed that he would clear the first year examination held in January 2013 solely because he had applied for re-evaluation. Attending the second year classes would not confer any right to be promoted to the second year," the bench said.

It observed that the student has not questioned that he had failed in the first year annual examination held in January 2013 and January 2014.

"After re-evaluation also, the appellant had been declared as failed. These results are not challenged. In these circumstances, we do not think the plaint, as framed, discloses any cause of action for a suit for damages of Rs 35 crores, which is rather fanciful," the bench added.

It said that to claim damages, loss caused has to be shown along with the causal connection linking the loss with the negligence and errors by the defendants.

"As the appellant had failed, the alleged lapses in the factual matrix would not confer any cause of action in the absence of link and causal connection of the act of negligence with the loss," the bench said.

The student, who had taken admission in the Bachelor of Engineering course, could not pass the re-examination as well. He had contended that he was unable to pass the re- examination due to lack of preparation time as the re- evaluation result, which also declared that he had failed, was delayed.

He had claimed that if he had been informed earlier about his failure in the initial examination through the re- evaluation result, he would have begun preparations for the re-examination sooner. He had also argued that there were some errors in the mark sheets issued to him. A single judge had earlier dismissed the plaint by the student after which he preferred an appeal before the division bench.

PTI