Orissa

Cuttak

CC/19/2016

Ashish Kumar Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,SBI - Opp.Party(s)

P Mishra

16 Jan 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C No.19/2016

 

Ashish Kumar Sahoo,

Plot No.68/938,Sector-9,

C.D.A, P.O:Bidanasi,

Cuttack.                                                                                           … Complainant.

 

Vrs.

1. Branch Manager,SBI,C.D.A Branch,

At: Sector-6, C.D.A,Cuttack.  

 

2. Regional College of Management,

Bhubaneswar, represented by its

Principal, At:Plot No.GD2/12 & 13,,

Chakadola Vihar,Chandrasekharpur,

                  Bhubaneswar

 

3. Biju Patnaik University of Technology,

Odisha through its,

Registrar,UGIE Complex,

At:Jail Road,PO:Rourkela-4,

Dist:Sundargarh.                                                                                 … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

Sri Bichitrananda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:    19.02.2016

Date of Order:  16.01.2017

 

For the complainant:    Sri P.Mishra,Advocate & Associates.

For the O.P No.1.       :   Mr. P.V.Balakrishna,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.2:             None.

For the O.P No.3:            Mr. Subrat Pal,Adv. & Associates.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath,Member(W).

                The Complainant has filed this case against the O.Ps alleging there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice with a prayer to grant appropriate relief to him in the interest of justice.

1. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant came in the merit list of JEE,Odisha and was selected and took admission in Regional College of Management, the O.P No.2 in the MCA course in the year 2007 and the complainant was registered with BPUT, the O.P No.3.
2. The complainant was sanctioned with a study loan by the SBI,CVDA Branch, the O.P No.1.As per requisition/estimate of O.P No.2 the required dues and expenses was paid by the Bank as well as the complainant to the O.P No.2 & 3.
3. The complainant completed the course and appeared all the examination and after publication of result he came out successful and provisional certificate CLC and conduct certificat3s were issued by O.P No.2 informer of complainant.
4. The complainant went to O.P No.2 to collect original University certificate but he was told to pay Rs.7500/- and when asked about the reason, the O.P No.2 did not assign any reason, so the complainant issued pleader’s notice but the principal of the college intimated that he is not the competent person.
5. Due to non-availability of original certificate complainant is deprived of getting promotion, increment and other facilities for which suffered financial loss and suffered mental agony and prayed for a direction to the O.Ps to supply original certificate and pay a compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs.
6. The O.P No.1 and 3 filed their written version and the O.P No.2 was set exparte on 16.12.2016.
7. The O.P No.3 in its counter has stated that the original certificate in respect to the MCA programme of 2009-2010 batch has already been issued to O.P No.2 and the college received the original certificate in respect to the MCA programme of 2009-2010 batch has already been issued to O.P No.2 and the college received the original certificate of the complainant on 15.3.2012 and there is no provision in the BPUT regulation to issue certificate directly to any student.  The O.P No.3 has relied upon two judgments of Apex Court reported in (2009) 8 Sec-483 Bihar School Examination Board Vrs. Suresh Prasad Sinha and (2011) 11 Sec-159.  The Hon’ble Apex Couth s held that a student is who takes an examination is not a consumer and District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain any such complaint.
8. The O.Ps further relied on a decision of the Hon’ble State Commission as reported in 2016(1) OLR 32 has held that District Forum ought not entertain consumer dispute cases against Universities.  O.P No.3 also relied on another Judgment of Hon’ble National Commission passed in F.A No.245 of 1992 which lays down that a candidate who applies to the University for evaluation of marks is not a consumer and is not entitled to approach the consumer Forum.
9. We have heard the advocates of the parties at length, went through the documents and papers filed by the parties as well as decisions cited by them.    The decisions cited by the O.Ps are not applicable to the case in hand.  The Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has held that a student who takes an examination is not a consumer.  But in the present case challenge is not related to examination rather the negligence of the O.Ps in providing the certificate to the complainant and charge of illegal fees.  There is difference between conduct of examination by the institutions and Boards and the services rendered by the educational institutions.  In the present case the complainant alleges deficiency in service in respect of providing of certificate and the Hon’ble Apex court has not laid down any proposition of law that a student of an educational institution can never be a consumer.  That apart the O.Ps cannot gain anything by retaining the certificate of the complainant and on the other hand the complainant has been prejudiced for the illegal action of O.Ps No.2 & 3. 
10. It was held by National Commission vide Review Petition No.3288 of 2016(Megha Gupta Vrs. Mody University) of Science & Technology at Sikar,Rajasthan as follows:

The Commission observed that the Supreme Court’s decisions that a student is not a consumer was rendered in the context of a statutory Board or University which could not be considered to be a service provider in respect of conducting academic examinations.  Hence the consumer complaints for alleged deficiency in service in respect of conducting examination or declaration of results would not be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.  The Commission, however, pointed out that Supreme Court Judgments do not lay down an abstract proposition of law that a student taking admission in an educational institute can never be a consumer of an educational institution.  The National Commission rejected the University’s argument that a consumer complaint would not be maintainable.  It observed that since Gupta’s grievance was in respect of unfair trade practice for non-refund of fees, she was entitled to approach the consumer Forum for Redressal of her grievances.

Similarly the present case is not regarding the examination held or regarding publication of the result.  Complainant Sri Sahoo has appeared the examination and has also passed the examination.  He has already issued with the provisional certificate. O.P.3 vide their written statement had already submitted that such original certificate has already been issued to O.P.2 i.e. the College.  The College has received 119 original certificates in respect of MCA programme including the present complainant on 15.03.2012.

Therefore, it is also clear that this is not case for certificate against the University.  The College authorities are playing a foul game with the student by not issuing the certificate to the student which is already received from the University.

The College authorities (O.P.2) have not attended the case nor given any written statement in their defense for which were they set exparte on 16.12.2016.  Thus we conclude that the College authorities have nothing to say in their defense.  We are constrained to believe the version of the complainant that the college authorities before issuing the original degree certificate have claimed to pay a sum of Rs.7500/- as arrear fees against which they have not produced any bill/document in support of their claim.  Such an act by the College authorities amounts to unfair trade practice.  Since Sri Sahoo’s grievances is against the unfair trade practice for claiming illegal fees by the college authorities, Sri Sahoo is entitled to approach the Consumer Forum for Redressal of his grievance. The O.P.2 is found deficient in rendering service to the complainant as well as following unfair trade practice.

ORDER

The O.P.2 is directed to provide the original certificate to the complainant.   However the College authorities may collect charges payable if any by the complainant as per rules and will produce necessary money receipts for the same.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 16^th   day of January,2017  under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

                                     ( Smt. Sarmistha Nath )

                                            Member (W)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               (Sri D.C.Barik)

                                                                                                                                       President.

                                                                                                                               (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                                          Member