Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/50/2015

S.Narendra Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Controller of Examinations, Sri Venkateswara University - Opp.Party(s)

In person

02 Jun 2016

ORDER

Filing Date: 10.11.2015

Order Date:02.06.2016

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

THURSDAY THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.50/2015

 

 

Between

 

S.Narendar Reddy,

H.No.20-182, Jawahar Road,

Mancherial  504208

 

Cell: 9440383277                                                                            … Complainant

 

 

 

And

 

 

1.         Controller of Examinations,

            Sri Venkateswara University,

            Tirupathi.

 

2.         Director,

            Distance Education,

            Sri Venkateswara University,

            Tirupati.                                                                                 …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 11.05.16 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.S.Narendar Reddy, party-in-person for complainant, and Sri.P.Balaram, counsel for the opposite parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed by S.Narendar Reddy against the opposite parties - S.V.University, Tirupati, for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite party No.1 to issue his M.Phil Convocation, 2) to direct the opposite party No.1 to refund Rs.500/- towards postal charges, 3) to direct the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.500/- towards compensation for the delay in processing application of the complainant, and 4) to direct the opposite party No.2 to refund Rs.3,645/- paid by the complainant.

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:-  that the complainant did his M.Phil with opposite party No.2 and applied for convocation by paying the required fee of Rs.2,570/- through SBI online challan along with his original M.Com certificate to the Controller of Examinations, S.V.University, Tirupati. The said application was returned on 06.07.2015, asking the complainant to submit E-Challan for Rs.3,645/- in advance for M.Phil Convocation. That the complainant submitted his application along with difference of amount of Rs.1,075/-, but he did not send the originals along with challan, as they were already verified by the University. The 2^nd application was also returned by opposite party No.1 i.e. Controller of Examinations, S.V.University on 24.07.2015, asking the complainant to submit E-Challan for Rs.3,645/- in advance for obtaining the M.Phil Convocation. Accordingly, complainant paid Rs.3,645/- through Andhra Bank and again applied for M.Phil Convocation third time on 01.09.2015 along with postal charges of Rs.110/- apart from stamped self address covers. The opposite party received his application on 07.09.2015 and again returned the same on 31.10.2015 asking the complainant to submit original degree (M.Com certificate). Thus the opposite parties are returning the application for M.Phil Convocation on some pretext or the other, though he paid convocation fee of Rs.3,645/- twice, opposite parties neither issued convocation certificate nor refunded the amount of Rs.3,645/- paid in excess (double payment). Hence the complaint.

            3.  opposite party No.1 filed written version and the same is adopted by opposite party No.2 contending that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, that the delay in issuing Convocation Certificate to complainant was occurred due to non-following the correct procedure by the complainant in applying for Convocation Certificate, such as, he has paid D-Challan for Rs.2,570/- instead of E-Challan for Rs.3,645/-, submitted xerox copies of M.Com certificate instead of original degree (M.Com certificate along with his application). That the complaint before Consumer Forum against the Universities and Educational Institutions are not maintainable, as they were not service providers, as per the rulings of Apex Court and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            4.  Both parties have filed their respective evidence affidavits and written arguments and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 for the complainant and no documents were marked on behalf of the opposite parties. Heard the complainant in person and the counsel for opposite parties.

            5.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether the complaint is maintainable against the University?

            (ii)  Whether the complainant is a consumer?

            (iii)  To what relief?

            6.  Point Nos.(i) & (ii):-  To answer this point, we have to say that though the complainant had pursued his M.Phil through distance education under the control of 2^nd opposite party i.e. the Director, Distance Education, S.V.University, Tirupati, and applied for his M.Phil Convocation, the complainant ought to have filed the complaint against the Registrar, S.V.University, Tirupati, before proper Forum. The Educational Institutions or the Universities are not service providers and therefore the complaint of the complainant against the opposite parties 1 and 2 i.e. Controller of Examinations, S.V.University, Tirupati and Director, Distance Education, S.V.University, Tirupati, are not maintainable, as the complaint was filed against the University. In this regard, we are relying on a decision reported in III (2014) CPJ 120 (NC)  Regional Institute of Cooperative Management Vs. Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Shitanshu Ranjan, Anshul Saini, Anamika Singh, Nisha and Aarif Faridi and also in another decision reported in 2010 (II) SCC 159  Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, in which their Lordships held that education is not a commodity. Education Institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in the matter 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 1986. In view of the above, their Lordships were not inclined to entertain the special leave petition and special leave petition is dismissed. In another decision reported in III (2013) CPJ 22 (SC) = 2013 (10) SCC 136  Jagmitter Sain Bhagat Vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana & Ors., their Lordships held that the student under such circumstances is not a consumer, the complainant shall have liberty to seek their grievances before proper Forum or Civil Court as per law. By virtue of the above decisions of their Lordships of Hon’ble National Commission and their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the student is not a consumer and Educational Institutions and Universities are not service providers and complaint therefore is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. Accordingly, this point is answered.   

            7.  Point No.(iii):-  before answering this point, we have to mention that while advancing oral arguments by the complainant in person, as well as counsel for the opposite parties on 11.05.2016, the learned counsel for the opposite parties represented before this Forum that he will take initiative for issuing the M.Phil Convocation to the complainant herein along with his original documents. Accordingly on the next day i.e. on 12.05.2016, the complainant came to the Forum and filed a memo stating that on 12.05.2016 at about 1 p.m., Controller of Examinations, S.V.University, issued his M.Phil Convocation Certificate and also returned his M.Com original certificate and he further stated that his contention with the Controller of Examinations (O.P.1) is closed. He further stated that the Forum may be pleased to direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.3,645/-. So, during pendency of the case, it is found that the opposite parties have issued M.Phil Convocation Certificate and his M.Com original certificate, as per the memo filed by the complainant. So, the dispute is only in respect of repayment of the amount of Rs.3,645/-, said to have been collected by the opposite parties twice. Further, in view of the above decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission and also the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the complaint against the University is not maintainable. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            In the result, complaint is dismissed as not maintainable and the complainant is at liberty to pursue his remedy / his Redressal by approaching the appropriate Forum or the Civil Court. No costs.                      

              Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 2^nd day of June, 2016.

 

        Sd/-                                                                                                                     Sd/-                                                                                                                                 

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.

PW-1:S. Narendar Reddy (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Parties.

RW-1:N.C. Prakash (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo Copy of M.Phil Convocation received by Sri Venkateswara University on 06-07-2015 and SBI Online D Challan for Rs. 2570-00 Dt:  01.07.2015.
	Photo Copy of SBI online D Challan for Rs. 1075-00 (Difference of 3645-2570).      Dt: 17.07.2015.
	Photo Copy of letter returned by Controller of Examinations, S.V. University writing remarks to pay 3645-00 by E Challan. Dt: 17.07.2015.
	True Copy of resubmitted application with E challan after paying Rs.3645-00 by Andhra Bank and Copy of E challan and copy of registered posts receipts on Dt: 01.09.2015.
	Photo Copy of letter written to The Directorate of Distance Education, SVU, Tirupati to refund my money paid to his account and copy registered post receipt. Dt 29.09.2015.
	Photo Copy of Postal on track record showing letter sent to Director received by him on Dt: 03.10.2015.
	Photo Copy of registered letter reminding Controller, S.V. university to accelerate my application process. Dt: 26.10.2015.
	Photo Copy of Envelop returned by Controller of Examinations, SVU, Tirupati and asking for submit M.Com Originals. Dt: 31.10.2015.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

NIL

 

                                                                                                                       Sd/-                                

                                                                                                               President

            // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

              Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

          

 

 Copies to:-    1. The complainant.

                       2. The opposite parties.