Delhi

North

CC/333/2024

KRISHAN KUMAR JHA & ORS - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH UNIVERSITY & ORS - Opp.Party(s)

06 Aug 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 333/2024

Date of Institution   :        03/08/2024

Date of Hearing      :        06/08/2024

 

In the matter of

Krishan Kumar Jha

S/o Pradeep Kumar Jha

R/o House No.A10A, Street No.-03

DCM Colony, Khasra No.-100

P.P.-Burari, P.S. Swaroop Nagar

Distt.-North Delhi-110084                    … Complainant No. 1

 

Krishn Kumar

S/o Satyaprakash Sharma

R/o Hosue No.294

Village-Ibrahimpur Junaidpururf Mojpur

Khurja, Bulandshahr, U.P.-203132        … Complainant No. 2

 

                                                                ​VERSUS

Chaudhary Charan Singh University

Ramgarhi, Meerut

Uttar Pradesh-250001                        …Opposite Party No. 1

 

N.A.S. College

XPM6+CH2, EK Rd, Subhash Nagar

Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250003         …Opposite Party No. 2

 

N.R.E.C College

Junction Road Khurja

Distt. Bulandshahr

Uttar Pradesh-203131                     …Opposite Party No. 3

 

ORDER (ORAL)

                                                                                                              06/08/2024

Present: Complainants in person

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

1. This complaint is listed today for hearing on admissibility of this complaint. The Complainants herein are said to be students of 3- year LL.B. Course offered by Chaudhary Charan Singh University (OP-1 herein) and are enrolled in NREC College (OP-3 herein) for the academic session 2021-2024. As the Complainants missed their viva/ practical examination of their 4^th semester, scheduled in August 2023, because of some family emergency, they applied for the re-examination of viva/ practical paper. The said examination was conducted by the OP-1 in one NAS College (OP-3 herein). It is the case of the Complainants that the neither of the OPs advertised of informed the Complainants about scheduling the examination in OP-3 College, as a result of which they missed the said re-examination as well.
2. By way of this complaint, the Complainants, inter alia, are seeking a relief against the OPs for a direction to conduct re-examination of the viva/ practical paper of 4^th semester or to direct the OPs to declare that the Complainants have cleared the said viva/practical examination without even appearing in the said examination.
3. We have gone through the complaint, its annexures and heard the arguments led by Complainants. OP-1 is admittedly a State of Uttar Pradesh run university located in Meerut. OP-2 and OP-3 are colleges which are affiliated to OP-1 University. As these colleges are imparting law education, it is also safely assumed that these colleges are also recognised by Bar Council of India. The issues raised by the Complainants herein clearly relate to university examination of the three year LL.B. Course.
4. It is settled position that any educational institution are not providing any kind of service to its students in matter of admission, fees, conduct of the education institutes, examination etc. Hence, there cannot be a question of deficiency of service on part of the education institutions. In this context, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar School Examination Board vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, [(2009) 8 SCC 483], in which Hon’ble Supreme Court was examining the concept of ‘Education’ and ‘Educational Services’ under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the Bihar School Examination Board (supra) judgment, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that any dispute relating to fault in holding of examination and non-declaration of result by an examinee does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihar School Examination Board (supra) judgment has held as under:

“12. When the Examination Board conducts an examination in discharge of its statutory function, it does not offer its “services” to any candidate. Nor does a student who participates in the examination conducted by the Board hires or avails of any service from the Board for a consideration. … The examination fee paid by the student is not the consideration for availment of any service, but the charge paid for the privilege of participation in the examination.

…

13. The object of the [Consumer Protection] 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.”

5. Similar view was also taken in another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maharashi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur [2010 (11) SCC  159] in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under-

“22. The National Commission appears to have been swayed by the observations made in Bangalore Water Supply case.  The respondent as a student is neither a consumer nor is the appellant rendering any service.  The claim of the respondent to award BED degree was almost in the nature of a relief praying for a direction to the appellant to act contrary to its own rules.  The National Commission, in our opinion, with the utmost respect to the reasoning given therein did not take into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and thus, arrived at a wrong conclusion.”

6. This observation in Surjeet Kaur Case (supra) has been reiterated by another bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T.Koshy vs. Ellen Charitable Trust [SLP(C) No. 22532/2012, decided on 09.08.2012] whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur [2010 (11) SCC 159] wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service.  Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”

7. Further, taking cue from above judgments, Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Prabhmeet Bawa vs. Registrar Amity University [2015 SCC online NCDRC 3751] has reiterated that it is a settled law that student is not a consumer. Further in the matter of Manu Solanki vs Vinayaka Mission University [I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC)], Hon’ble National Commission, while answering a reference, has also held that education institutions are out of purview of the application of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In Manu Solanki (supra), Hon’ble National Commission has held as under:

“51. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport, etc. except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

52. The Reference is accordingly answered.”

8. Although the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Manu Solanki case has been challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, but the said appeal has not yet been decided. Further, as there is no stay of the order of Hon’ble National Commission in Manu Solanki (supra) case, the order passed by Hon’ble National Commission still holds water and is binding upon us.
9. In view of the judgments referred above, it is not abundantly clear that the education institutions, while performing statutory functions including offering courses and conducting examination etc., do not provide service as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Further, it is also settled position that by way of paying the fee to the education institutions- including admission fee and examination fee etc.; the students have not paid the consideration for availment of any service. The students, therefore are neither consumer nor are covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
10. Hence, for the reasons explained above, this Commission cannot entertain this complaint. Accordingly this complaint is dismissed at admission stage itself. No. costs.
11. The Complainants, however, are granted liberty to approach the forum of appropriate jurisdiction for redrerssal of their grievances, if so advised. At this stage, it is clarified that that by way of this order, we have not examined the complaint on merits and if the Complainants approach the forum of appropriate jurisdiction, the same shall decide the complaint on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made in this order.
12. Office is directed to return with acknowledgment, all original documents filed by Complainants, if any, after replacing the same from photo copies of the respective originals in the records of this complaint.
13. Copy of this order be supplied to parties in accordance with the rules. Thereafter file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

 

___________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member