The complainant’s case in a nutshell is that complainant took part in the Joint Entrance Examination in the year 2013 and get chance in the Joint Entrance examination. The complainant has applied to the oP for admission and OP delivered form for admission to the complainant. OP took Rs.63,000/- by receipt from the complainant . It is also case of the complainant that on various occasions complainant gave Rs.1,22,000/- to the oP by cash and

OP did not give any receipt . The complainant started regular class of engineering under OP as per direction of the oP for 2 ½ months and complainant entered into the internal examination under the oP for two times. But at the time of first Semester OP refused to register the name of the complainant in the University. Inspite of request by the complainant for many times the Op did not take any step for registration .  The Op without any reason avoided registration of the complainant’s name to the University inspite of accepting Rs.1,85,000/-. The complainant’s father died on 1.2.2014. Hence, this case  for compensation for harassment.

            Op no.1 appeared and contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia   all the material allegations.  The case of the OP is that complainant should make the University W.B.U.T. as a party of this case. It is also stated that the registration of any student by the University is not at all in the hands of any institute and it depends upon University subject to the compliance of all norms. A student cannot be allowed to appear at the examination unless he is given Admit card. It is also stated that there is no contract between the complainant and this Op. The Institute is guided by its own norms.

            In this case complainant has filed some documents including receipt of Rs.63,000/-. Op has filed Annexure A and some papers showing correspondence with the Registrar , West Bengal University of Technology, BF 142 Sector I, Salt Lake , Kolkata – 64. Annexure B is a letter from the OP to the Registrar, WBUT subject matter cause of non registration of Apurba Chakraborty in B.Tech course in Mechanical Engineering for 2013-14.

                                                            POINT FOR DECISION

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer ?
2. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief ?

DECISION WITH REASONS :

            Issue no.1 is taken for consideration –

            The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 invariably consider allegation of the consumer. The person who approaches before the Forum, must be a consumer within the purview of the C.P.Act. Applying the letter of Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act and applying the principles of law laid down in very remarkable case law we find nowhere that a student can claim himself as a consumer. Virtually Educational institution has been kept outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act on the principle that Education or learning is not a commodity or a chattel or a property. The complainant is unable to satisfy this forum that he is a consumer. Accordingly, this issue goes against him and decided in negative.

Issue no.2 is taken for consideration –

            In this case , however, the oP has filed some Xerox copy i.e. some letters to the Registrar of the West Bengal University of Technology for registration of the name of this complainant. Annexure A and B show that no reply has been sent by the West Bengal University of Technology to the oP. OP is nothing but a mediator who imparts education under the active control of West Bengal University of Technology but the latter has not been made party in this

case. Accordingly, it is very difficult to determine the deficiency in service of OP . In absence of WBUT no conclusion or decision regarding point of deficiency cannot be concluded. So this issue also decided against the complainant and decided for the oP.

Issue no.3 is taken up for consideration :

            As briefly  discussed hereinbefore we are of opinion that the case is not as necessary under the C.P.Act . The complainant is not entitled to get any relief. So , we are of opinion that the instant complaint case fails. Hence-

                                                            It is ordered

            That the C.C. no. 94 of 2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest.

            Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.