DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 283 of 20.7.2017
Decided on: 23.2.2018
Charanjit Kaur D/o S.Ajaib Singh R/o MES Quarter, H.No.P-44/1, Nabha Cantt., Nabha, District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
- Balraj Singla Vidya Sagar College, Village Fatehpur, District Patiala, through its Chairman Sandeep Singla.
- Punjabi University, Patiala, through its Registrar.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Ms. Charanjit Kaur, complainant in person.
Sh.M.L.Sharma, Advocate, counsel for
opposite party No.1
Smt.Kusum Sood, Advocate, counsel for
Opposite party No.2
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Ms. Charanjit Kaur complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.)
2. In brief the case of the complainant is that she being the regular student of Op no.1 was pursuing the B-Lib course at the University. It is stated that in the first semester due to some reasons, she could not clear the paper of “Knowledge Organization & Information Processing”, for which she wanted to give the paper in her second semester. It was directed by Op no.1 to the complainant that the fee of Rs.10,600/- for re-appear be deposited with Op no.1 directly by her and all the paperwork and endorsement would be done by Op no.1 itself. Accordingly she deposited the fee with Op no.2 as directed by Op no.1 vide receipt No.107930 dated 20.3.2017, duly acknowledged by Op no.2. It was told to the complainant that Roll Number alongwith date sheet would be sent to Op no.1 who would inform to the complainant. On 12.7.2017, she came to know that the examination of “Knowledge Organization & Information Processing” was going to be held on the said date itself. She immediately approached OP no.1to know about the Roll number and date of examination of “Knowledge Organization & Information Processing” from where she came to know that roll number has already been received by Op no.1 from Op no.2 but due to negligence same could not be transmitted to the complainant. It is stated that she used to visit the office of OP no.1 for inquiring about the receipt of roll number and for the proposed date of examination. That due to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs her academic career was spoiled, which caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with a prayer for giving a direction to the OPs to pay Rs.5lacs as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant and Rs.15000/- as cost of litigation expenses. Any other relief which this Forum may deem fit may also be granted.
3. On being put to notice OPs appeared and filed their separate written version.In the written version filed by OP no.1 preliminary objections have been taken that present complaint is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction; that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standee to file the present complaint.On merits, it is stated that complainant was regular student of B-Lib of OP no.2. It had no concern with regard to non clearing of any paper or deposit of re-appear fee etc. or issuance of any fee receipt. Roll number alongwith date sheet was to be sent by Op no.2 directly to the complainant. There is no fault of Op no.1 as it has no concern with this work.There was no deficiency of service on the part of Op no.1. After denouncing all other allegations raised against OP no.1, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In the written version filed by Op no.2 preliminary objections have been taken that the present complaint is not maintainable qua it; that the complainant does not fall in the definition of consumer under the Act; that this Forum does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the special chance examination fee was deposited by the complainant. It is further stated that Op no.2 had duly delivered the roll number of the complainant to Op no.1 on 5.7.2017. The date sheet was also uploaded on the net on 30.6.2017. The complainant was required to collect the roll number from Op no.1. There is no deficiency of service on the part of Op no.2. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. On being called to do so, the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA her affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
The ld. counsel for Op no.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Sandeep Singla Chairman, alongwith documents Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.
The ld. counsel for Op no.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPB affidavit of Sh.Tejpal Singh, Supdt. of Punjabi University alongwith documents Exs.OP2 to OP5 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the complainant, the ld. counsel for OPs No.1&2, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld.counsel for OPs No.1&2 and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7. The complainant has submitted that she was doing the B-lib course as a regular student from Balraj Singla Vidya Sagar college i.e. OP no.1. In the first semester she got re-appear in the subject “Knowledge Organization & Information Processing”She approached OP no.1 for re-appearing in the exam. OP no.1 advised her to approach the OP no.2 directly for filling up the form and deposit of the requisite fee. Accordingly on 20.3.2017 she submitted the re-appear form and deposited fee of Rs.10,600/- with OP no.2 vide receipt No.107930. The OP no.2 told her that it would send the roll number alongwith date sheet to Op no.1 and in turn convey the same to her on receiving the same. But she did not get any information regarding roll number and the proposed date sheet either from OP no.1 or OP no.2. However, on 12.7.2017, she came to know from some independent source that examination for the subject “Knowledge Organization & Information Processing” was going to be held on 12.7.2017 itself. She approached the office of OP no.1 to get the roll number. Its official told her that roll number and date sheet were already received from the office of Op no.2 but due to some negligence the same could not be delivered to her. By not delivering the roll number and date sheet in time , the OPs have not only spoiled her academic career but have also caused her a lot of mental agony and physical harassment as well as monetary loss. Therefore, she is certainly entitled for compensation.
The ld. counsel for Op no.1 has vehemently argued that since the complainant had directly deposited the fee and the application form for the reappear examination with OP no.2 , therefore, it was the duty of OP no.2 to send the roll number and date sheet directly to the complainant. No services were provided by OP no.1 to the complainant in this regard. Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer qua it. Even otherwise, the law has already been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court in catena of judgments that the complaints filed against the educational institutions are not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. Thus, the complaint filed by the complainant is not only liable to be dismissed on merits but also liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction of this Forum.
The ld. counsel for Op no.2 has argued that the complaints against the educational institutions are not maintainable before the Consumer Forum, therefore the present complaint filed by the complainant may kindly be dismissed. In support of her contention, she has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha IV(2009)CPJ 34(SC) and in the case of P.T.Koshy & Anr. Versus Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors.2012(3)C.P.C.615.
8. It may be stated here that in the case of Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha IV(2009)CPJ 34(SC), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, “Examination Board while conducting examination, in discharge of statutory function, does not offer ‘services’ to candidates. Examination fee paid by student not consideration for available of service, but charge paid for privilege of participation in examination-Board not ‘service provider’-Student appearing in examination, not ‘consumer’-Complaint under Consumer Protection Act not maintainable against Board,University”. In the case of P.T.Koshy & Anr. Versus Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors.2012(3)C.P.C.615, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that educational institutions are not providing any kind of service , therefore, in such matters of admission, fees etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency in service . Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act”.
9. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the cases referred to above, which is still a valid law, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Consequently, we dismiss the same without any order as to cost. However, the complainant shall have liberty to seek her grievance before the proper Forum or civil court, as per law. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:23.2.2018
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
