KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.47/2017

ORDER DATED:15.02.2022

(Against the Order in C.C. 173/2016 of CDRC, Pathanamthitta )

PRESENT:

REVISION PETITIONER/ OPPOSITE PARTY

(by Adv. Sreeja Thulasi & Adv. Pradeep Kumar C)

VS.

RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT:

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT

          This Revision is filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.25/2017 in C.C.No.173/2016 challenging an order dated 28.04.2017 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short) dismissing the Interlocutory Application.  The Interlocutory Application was filed by the Revision Petitioner questioning the maintainability of the complaint and praying that the same may be dismissed as not maintainable.  As per the order under revision, the District Forum has found the complaint to be maintainable and has dismissed the Interlocutory Application.  It is aggrieved by the said order that the Revision Petitioner is before us.

          The complaint was filed by the complainant herein alleging that he was a person hailing from a scheduled caste family, who had completed his SSLC and Higher Secondary courses with first class and above marks in March 2012.  His family belongs to the BPL strata.  While so, pursuant to an advertisement that he saw in the Malayala Manorama daily he approached the Revision Petitioner who is conducting an institution under the name and style, Talent B-School to enquire about the courses offered by them.  The Revision Petitioner made him believe that all their courses were approved by the UGC and AICTE and other governmental organisations.  According to him he was persuaded by the Revision Petitioner to join the BBA course of the Jodhpur National University in the year 2013 in the part-time distance mode of education.  He was made to believe that the particular course was offered by the Jodhpur University and that the same was approved by the UGC and AICTE.  The duration of the course was three years, divided into six semesters.  At the time of joining the course he had paid an amount of Rs.35,000/-.  The total course fee was Rs.57,000/-.  The balance amount of course fee of Rs.22,000/- was paid by him in two instalments.  The examinations were conducted by the Revision Petitioner in their office premises.  Subsequently mark lists were also issued to him.  However in all the mark sheets the semester examination year was quoted wrongly.  The opposite party had appeared for the first semester examination in December 2012.  But in his mark list, it was mentioned as December 2011.  The said factual error had occurred in all his subsequent mark lists.  All his mark lists were handed over to him together after his course was over in the year 2015.  On noticing the mistake the opposite party requested the Revision Petitioner to correct the mark sheets at the earliest.  However, the Revision Petitioner demanded an amount of Rs.8,000/- for correction of the mark sheets.  The opposite party who is from a poor family was not able to give the said amount.  Therefore, on 04.06.2016 he sent a registered notice directly to the Controller of Examinations, Jodhpur National University narrating all the facts and requesting that his mark lists may be corrected.  On 08.06.2016 itself the Registrar of the Jodhpur University issued a reply stating that no mark lists as referred to by the respondent had been issued by the University and that no student by his name exists in the University records.  The reply of the University showed that the Revision Petitioner had cheated the respondent with intention to  appropriate money from him.  He also realised that the mark lists issued by the Revision Petitioner were bogus and fabricated.

          The case of the respondent is that the Revision Petitioner had been conducting the course without any authorisation from the University.  Therefore, the action of the Revision Petitioner in conducting such courses and issuing bogus, fabricated mark lists amounts of clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  He has therefore sought for the grant of appropriate compensation and return of the amounts paid by him. 

          The Revision Petitioner has filed version and is contesting the complaint.  The Revision Petitioner has admitted the receipt of the amounts paid by the respondent.  It was after filing version that the Revision Petitioner had filed I.A.No.25/2017 raising the question of the maintainability of the complaint.  The respondent filed objections to the petition and the matter was heard by the District Forum.  As per the order under revision the Interlocutory Application has been dismissed.

          This Revision Petition was admitted by us and the Lower Court Records were called for.  On receipt of notice, the respondent appeared through counsel.  We have heard both counsel elaborately.  We have also perused the records of the case.

          According to the counsel for the Revision Petitioner, the National Commission has in Manu Solanki and others Vs. Vinayaka Mission University I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC) held that a student of an educational institution is not a person coming within the definition of “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short).  An educational institution that imparts instruction and education to students is not rendering any service as contemplated by the provisions of the Act.  Therefore, the present complaint being one related to alleged deficiency in the matter of education was not maintainable before the District Forum.  According to the counsel, the decision referred to fully covers the issue in this case and therefore the complaint ought to have been dismissed by the District Forum.  It is pointed out by the learned counsel that, the respondent/ complainant was a student who had attended the course conducted by the Revision Petitioner and that he does not come within the definition of ‘consumer’ under section 2(d) of the Act.  Nor is the education imparted by the Revision Petitioner a ‘service’ within the definition of the expression contained in section 2(o) of the Act.  The alleged complaint is also not a ‘deficiency’ within the meaning of section 2(g) of the Act.  According to the learned counsel, the order under revision is against the dictum laid down by the National Commission and is therefore liable to be set aside.

          The counsel for the respondent answers the above contentions by pointing out that, the facts in this complaint are totally different from the facts of the case in which the National Commission had pronounced its judgment.  In the said case the course itself was conducted by the university, a statutory authority that was bound to perform its statutory functions.  In the present case the university is not a party and the university has informed the respondent that the course conducted by the Revision Petitioner was not authorised by them.  The complaint in this case is regarding an unfair and illegal act committed by the Revision Petitioner misrepresenting to the respondent that the course was recognised by the university.  False and fabricated mark lists have been handed over to the respondent after the course was completed.  The complainant has been cheated.  He has wasted precious years of his student life in pursuit of a degree by spending his time and energy in a course that was bogus.  According to the learned counsel, in the facts and circumstances of the present case it is clear that the Revision Petitioner was engaged in an activity of deliberately misleading and cheating students.  The said activity cannot be termed as education.  The District Forum has rightly found that the complaint was maintainable.  It is therefore submitted that this revision petition is only to be dismissed.

          We have considered the rival contentions advanced before us anxiously.  The question of maintainability has to be considered with reference to the averments made in the complaint.  Since evidence has not been adduced, whether the averments in the complaint are justified or not would be clear only after evidence is let in.  An examination of the complaint shows that, the very authenticity of the course conducted by the Revision Petitioner as well as the competence of the Revision Petitioner to conduct the same have been disputed and questioned.  According to the complaint the examination was conducted in the office premises of the Revision Petitioner. All the mark sheets were issued together in the year 2015.  The mark sheets contained factual errors. For correction of the mistakes the Revision Petitioner had demanded an amount of Rs.8,000/- which the respondent did not pay.  The total amount paid as course fee was a hefty sum of Rs.57,000/-.  When complaint was made to the Jodhpur University directly, the Registrar is alleged to have informed the respondent that no such mark sheets as referred to by him were issued by the university and that his name did not figure in the list of the students of the University.  On the basis of the above, the contention is that, the Revision Petitioner was conducting a non-approved course and issuing bogus and fabricated mark sheets and, in the process cheating the students.  The students are being cheated of not only their money but also their chances to join other regular and approved courses.  The respondent’s educational career has been ruined, for which he has claimed compensation.

          Going by the averments contained in the complaint what emerges is that this is not a case in which the complaint is regarding deficiency in the imparting of education.  This is a case in which the complaint is that, under the guise of conducting an educational course, students are being cheated.  It is therefore contended that the conduct of the Revision Petitioner is an unfair trade practice and a deficiency as defined under the Act.

          As already noticed above, the contentions of the Revision Petitioner is that the present case is squarely covered by the dictum in Manu Solanki case (supra).  However, as rightly found by the District Forum, the factual matrix in the present case is totally different form that of Manu Solanki case.  In the present case, the Revision Petitioner was not discharging any statutory function.  Nor was the Revision Petitioner conducting examinations, evaluating answer scripts or declaring results.  This is a case in which the allegation is that the Revision Petitioner was conducting courses that were neither approved nor authorised by the University.  Therefore, going by the averments in the complaint, we do not find any similarity to the facts available before the National Commission in ManuSolanki case and this case.  We also bear in mind the fact that the National Commission has in Manu Solanki case held that conduct of coaching classes does not fall within the ambit of what is understood as education and that such institutions would come within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Courts.  The above aspects would be clear only after evidence is adduced.  But, what the Revision Petitioner wants is a dismissal of the complaint at the preliminary stage itself.

          Having considered the pleadings in this case and the nature of the allegations made, we are not satisfied that this is a case that is covered by the dictum of the National Commission in Manu Solanki case, as contended by the counsel for the Revision Petitioner.  We find that the issue has been approached correctly by the District Forum.  The matter has been considered elaborately with the support of precedents.  Therefore, the finding of the District Forum that the complaint is maintainable is fully justified.  The said finding is confirmed.

          In the result, this Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.

SL