BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Ms.Jaspreet Kaur d/o Sh.Sukhjinder Singh Sekhon r/o H.No.3090, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                   V E R S U S

1.   Asian IT Education Ltd., (Authorised Learning Centre of PTU), Sh.Balaji Institute, SCO No.41, 2nd floor, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh, through Mr.Sandeep Kumar.

2.   Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar (Punjab), through its Registrar.

                        ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:    SH.P.D.GOEL                     PRESIDENT

          SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL          MEMBER

          DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA   MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Hittan Nehra, Counsel for the complainant.

              Sh.Prem Chand Chaudhary, Counsel for OP No.1.

              Sh.Ajay Singh Parmar, Counsel for OP No.2.  

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

1]        Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant got herself enrolled with OPs and paid a sum of Rs.9500/- vide DD No.424267 on 11.8.2005. The complainant paid also the requisite fee for all the semesters within the stipulated time and she also cleared the 1st & 2nd semester but due to some personal difficulty, she could not appear in one paper of 3rd semester. The complainant appeared for the 4th semester in September, 2007 and also in one paper of the 3rd semester. She received the Detailed Marks Card (DMC) for the 1st, 2nd and 4th semesters but the DMC for the 3rd semester was not supplied to her for the last more than 4 ½ years, despite repeated requests. It has been further pleaded that in January, 2009, when the complainant persisted for the DMC of 3rd semester, she was informed by OP No.1 that she has to re-appear in one paper of 3rd semester. The complainant immediately contacted OP No.2  and filled up examination form and paid the fee in September, 2009 for re-appear exam. However, she was not informed about her result and in March, 2010, she was orally informed that she had cleared the exam scoring 47 marks.

          The complainant was not supplied her DMC for the 3rd semester, despite repeated requests and reminders. The complainant sent the legal notice dated 23.8.2010 – Annexure C-3 to the OPs but to no avail. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Forum and after issuance of notice, the DMC for 3rd semester along with degree of MBA was issued to her. Due to the act of OPs, the complainant could not get a job as per her qualification of MBA because of non supply of DMC of 3rd semester as well as degree for the completion of MBA. Hence, this complaint.

2]        OP No.1 filed the reply. The preliminary objections vis-à-vis jurisdiction and limitation were raised. On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant got admission in MBA on 11.8.2005 through Distance Education Programme and paid all fees directly to OP No.2. It has been pleaded that the complaint relates to OP No.2 and its Regional Centre, Chandigarh has not been made the party as examination and results are within their exclusive domain and authority. The complainant was well aware that in case a student is absent in any paper, then no DMC is issued and student has to reappear in that paper.

          It has been denied that OP No.1 had informed the complainant about reappear in January, 2009. It has been further pleaded that after receipt of the DMC, the complainant was satisfied. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on their part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory costs has been made.  

3]        OP No.2 filed the reply. The preliminary objection vis-à-vis jurisdiction and limitation were raised. On merits, it has been pleaded that the complainant got compartment in two papers in 3rd semester. She was unable to clear the 3rd semester upto September, 2011, therefore, DMC could not be issued. It has been further pleaded that as and when the complainant cleared the re-appear exam and fulfilled the formalities, the DMC was issued. It has been further pleaded that at the time of admission, every student was told to check the website of the university. It has been further pleaded that in case of compartment, the DMC is not issued as per rules. The complainant appeared in the compartment examination in September, 2009. Rest of the allegations have been denied and prayed that there was no deficiency in service on its part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs has been made. 

4]        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]        We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

6]        The ld.Counsel for the OPs raised an objection to the effect that the present complaint is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha-IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC). 

7]        We find merit in the objection raised by the ld.Counsel for the OPs. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad (Supra), in Para No.10 & 11, has categorically held that :-

10.  The Board is a statutory authority established under the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952. The function of the Board is to conduct school examinations. This statutory function involves holding periodical examinations, evaluating the answer scripts, declaring the results and issuing certificates. The process of holding examinations, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function. It is not possible to divide this function as partly statutory and partly administrative……….

11.  The object of the Act is to cover in its net, services offered or rendered for a consideration. Any service rendered for a consideration is presumed to be a commercial activity in its broadest sense (including professional activity or quasi-commercial activity). But the Act does not intended to cover discharge of a statutory function of examining whether a candidate is fit to be declared as having successfully completed a course by passing the examination. The fact that in the course of conduct of the examination, or evaluation of answer-scripts, or furnishing of mark-sheets or certificates, there may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Board into a service-provider for a consideration, nor convert the examinee into a consumer who can make a complaint under the Act. We are clearly of the view that the Board is not a `service provider' and a student who takes an examination is not a `consumer' and consequently, complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board.

8]        In view of the above settled position of law, we are of the opinion that the objection raised by the ld.Counsel for OPs fully justified. Therefore, we dismiss the present complaint being not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant is at liberty to approach any appropriate court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of her grievance. 

          Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.