Presented by:-

Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay,  President.

Brief fact of this case:-  This case has been filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant stating that the complainant applied for admission at the first semester session 2020-21 B.A. Honours in French, B.A Honours English, B.A general with French as one of the subjects and his application ID is 9163278883 with and 100% successful. The complainant manifested his willingness on 8.9.2020. His name was enlisted in the provisional 3^rd Merit list of B.A Honours in French on 13.9.2020.  He attempted repeatedly within the stipulated time to submit his payment but failed and he lodged a complaint on the Chandannagar college help desk but got no reply and his name was enlisted in the provisional 4^th merit list of B.A general on 18.9.2020 and he attempted repeatedly within the stipulated time to submit his payment but failed and he once again lodged a complaint on the Chandannagar college help desk but got no reply and as a result he did not get admission in any  of the two streams and he wants to pursue his higher studies with French and the Chandannagar College is the only Government college where French is taught at the UG and PG levels.

The complainant requested the op to inform him as to why he was deprived of getting admission and the op replied verbally that the transfer certificate of the complainant was generated on 11.9.2020 and if that be so how the name of the complainant enlisted in the provisional 3^rd merit list dated 13.9.2020 for `1^st semester French (Honours) and provisional 4^th merit list dated  18.9.2020 published by the O.P college for admission to First semester BA general for the session 2020-21 and the complainant through his Ld. Advocate sent a notice addressed to the OP college with a request to ensure the admission of the complainant in the op college BA (Honours) in French for the session 2020-21 within 48 Hrs. otherwise complainant will have no other alternative but take recourse of law.

After receiving the said notice the op sent a letter vide memo no.939 date 1.10.2020 addressed to the ld. Advocate for the complainant with a request to direct his client i.e. the complainant to meet the op accompanied by his legal guardian on 09.10.2020 with all the relevant documents.  The complainant with a high hope of his admission met the op on 9.10.2020 at 12.30 p.m accompanied by his mother as legal guardian alongwith all the relevant documents.  Even after proper discussion and perusal of necessary papers and documents the op refused to give the opportunity of admission in B.A (Honours) in French for the session 2020-21.

Complainant is entitled to get his admission in B.A (Honours) in French for the session 2020-21 in the OP college and filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 200000/- for harassment and mental agony  and to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- for litigation cost.

Defense Case:-  The opposite party contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against them and stated that the complainant is not at all a “Consumer” under the consumer protection Act  2019.  According to the section 2(7) consumer protection act 2019 the consumer’ means any person, who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid of partly promise or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buy such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does  not include a person who obtain such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose or hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid of partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such services other than the person hires or avail of the services goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promise or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mention person, but does not include of person who obtain such services for any commercial purpose.

Purpose of the highlighting clause has been described in w/v.

The OP is a higher educational institution run directly by the Govt. of West Bengal.  The complainant in his complain in paragraph no.20(a) prayed for declaration that the complainant is entitled to his admission in B.A (Hons) in French for the session 2020-21 in the OP college.  The op submit that this ld. Commission has no jurisdiction to declare that the complainant is entitled to his admission in the OP college.  The op submits whether the complainant is entitled to get his admission in the op college or not that should be decided by the Civil Court. The  OP submits that the filing of this complainant case before the ld. Commission is bad in law.  The op submits that the ld. Commission has no power to try and entertain the present complainant.  The op therefore seeking for an order of dismissal of this case as not maintainable since this ld. Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and determine this case within the meaning of consumer protection act, 2019.  The op submits that after receiving the notice the op discussed everything to the complainant and his guardian about the procedure or online admission of the Chandernagore College.  On 11.9.2020 the complainant admitted through e-mail that he have wrongly applied for transfer certificate.  The op submits that the procedure for online admission in Chandernagore College that if an applicant withdraw himself voluntarily he cannot re-enter the system.  It is irreversible.  The complainant applied for transfer certificate to withdraw himself from the system and for authentication uploaded his cancelled cheque and only after that transfer certificate issued as per the prayer of the complainant.  The OP also submits that there is no option for offline admission of Chandernagore college.  The complainant is very much aware about the online admission procedure.  The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.  The op submits that the complaint case should liable to dismiss with cost.

Issues/points for consideration

On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
2. Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Is there any cause of action for filing this case by the complainant?
4. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?

Evidence on record

The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite party.

            The answering opposite party filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version and so it is needless to discuss.

Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties

Complainant and opposite party filed written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are to be taken into consideration for passing final order.

            Argument as advanced by the agents of the complainant and the opposite party heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyers of both sides have given emphasis on evidence and document produced by parties.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

According to the section 2(7) consumer protection act 2019 the consumer’ means any person, who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid of partly promise or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buy such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does  not include a person who obtain such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose or hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid of partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such services other than the person hires or avail of the services goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promise or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mention person, but does not include of person who obtain such services for any commercial purpose.

In this case this District Commission has framed as many as five issues out of which the first three issues which have been framed on the point whether complainant is a consumer under the OP or not whether this District Commission has jurisdiction to try this case or not and whether there is cause of action for filing this complaint case or not, are very vital issues and for that reason these three points of consideration are taken up for discussion at first.  In this regard it is important to note that the OP in its written version has adopted the plea that the complainant is not a consumer.  So this point is to be decided at first.

The definition of consumer which is depicted in section 2(7) is clearly reflecting that the complainant is not a consumer at all in the eye of law.  Moreso in this case the complainant has adopted the plea that he applied for admission in the course of B.A (French Honours) and he was empanelled in the merit list but he has been deprived from getting admission.  In this regard it is important to note that the complainant has failed to produce cogent evidence to show that he has deposited the fees for applying in the above noted course under the OP institution.  It is also very vital to note that the complainant side during this stage of trial has not taken any steps to call for documents relating to admission before this District Commission from OP institution.  It is also mentionworthy that the education is not coming under the definition of “goods” or services.

All these factors are clearly reflecting that the complainant has no cause of action for filing this instant complaint case.

As the complainant is not a consumer and as the complainant has no cause of action for filing this case, it is crystal clear that this District Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case.

A cumulative consideration of the above noted discussion goes to show that the complainant is neither a consumer under the OP nor he has cause of action for filing this case nor this District Commission has any jurisdiction to try this case.  So this District Commission has no other alternative but to dismiss this case.

In the result, it accordingly,

Ordered

that this complaint case no.75 of 2020 be and the same is dismissed on contest.

No order is passed as to cost.

            Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.

Dictated and corrected by me.