Uttarakhand

StateCommission

A/192/2019

Kartik Pundir - Complainant(s)

Versus

D.I.T. University - Opp.Party(s)

01 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND

DEHRADUN

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 192 / 2019

 

Sh. Kartik Pundir S/o Sh. Mukesh Pundir

R/o E-4, Shiv Shakti Apartment

Mahavir Enclave, Railway Road

Ganeshpur, Roorkee, District Haridwar

…… Appellant / Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.         DIT University

            Mussoorie-Dehradun Road, Dehradun

through its Registrar

 

2.         State Bank of India

            Roorkee, District Haridwar

            through its Branch Manager

…… Respondents / Opposite Parties

 

Sh. Shree Gopal Narsan, Learned Counsel for the Appellant

Sh. Vaibhav Jain, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1

None for Respondent No. 2

 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President

               Mr. Udai Singh Tolia,                         Member-II

                                   

Dated: 01/03/2023

ORDER

(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):

 

This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.04.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar (in short “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 465 of 2015; Sh. Kartik Pundir Vs. DIT University and another, by which the consumer complaint filed by the appellant / complainant has been dismissed by the District Commission, for want of territorial jurisdiction in the matter.

 

2.       Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that according to the consumer complaint, for the academic session 2015-16, the appellant / complainant had taken provisional admission in respondent No. 1 – University (opposite party No. 1 before the District Commission) in B. Tech. (Civil Engineering) on 14.06.2015 and deposited sum of Rs. 25,017.10/- and Rs. 61,483/- respectively with the University on 24.06.2015 through respondent No. 2 – bank opposite party No. 2 before the District Commission).  This way, the complainant had deposited total sum of Rs. 86,500/-.  After taking provisional admission in the University, the complainant secured admission in College of Engineering Roorkee (COER), hence without taking any education and attending class, the complainant sought refund of the amount deposited by him with the University by withdrawing his provisional admission, after deducting processing fee of not more than Rs. 1,000/- as per the rules of University Grants Commission and All India Council for Technical Education (A.I.C.T.E.).  However, the amount was not refunded by the University, which caused mental and physical agony as well as financial loss to the complainant.  Thereafter, the consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Commission.

 

3.       The respondent No. 1 – University filed written statement before the District Commission, pleading therein that the District Commission, Haridwar has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter.  The refund policy of the University is clearly disclosed to all the candidates / students and the same was also provided to the complainant, which was accepted by the complainant by putting his signatures and the same clearly envisaged that the withdrawal form was to be submitted before 31.07.2015, otherwise the candidate would not be entitled to withdraw from the course.  There has not been any violation of rules of University Grants Commission and All India Council for Technical Education (A.I.C.T.E.) on the part of the University.  In the event of leaving the course in the middle on account of securing admission in another College, the candidate is not entitled to refund of fee.

 

4.       The respondent No. 2 – bank filed written statement before the District Commission, pleading that it has unnecessarily been arrayed as party to the consumer complaint and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.

 

5.       After giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, the consumer complaint has been dismissed by learned District Commission vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.04.2019.  Aggrieved, the complainant has filed the instant appeal.     

 

6.       We have heard rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1 and also perused the record.  None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2, although Sh. R.S. Bajwa, Advocate had already put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2 on 29.07.2022.

 

7.       We do not want to go into the issue of territorial jurisdiction and proceed to decide the appeal on merit.  From the perusal of record, it is evident that the matter relates to refund of fee.  Thus, it is to be decided whether the appellant – complainant falls under the definition of “consumer”, as defined under the Act and whether the respondent No. 1 – University can be termed to be “service provider”.  It is noteworthy that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha reported in IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC), has laid down that Bihar School Examination Board does not offer “service” to any candidate, nor does any student hires or avails of any “service” from the Board for a consideration.  Paragraph No. 10 of the said decision is reproduced below:

 

“10.   The Board is a statutory authority established under the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952.  The function of the Board is to conduct school examinations.  This statutory function involves holding periodical examinations, evaluating the answer scripts, declaring the results and issuing certificates.  The process of holding examinations, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function.  It is not possible to divide this function as partly statutory and partly administrative.  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.  On the other hand, a candidate who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, is a person who has undergone a course of study and who requests the Board to test him as to whether he has imbibed sufficient knowledge to be fit to be declared as having competence vis-vis other examinees.  The process is not therefore availment of a service by a student, but participation in a general examination conducted by the Board to ascertain whether he is eligible and fit to be considered as having successfully completed the secondary education course.  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.”

 

8.       Hon’ble National Commission in its judgment dated 17.12.2017 rendered in Revision Petition No. 3144 of 2016; Krishan Mohan Goyal Vs. St. Mary’s Academy and another, has discussed the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur reported in (2010) 11 SCC 159, in which it has been laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court that a student is neither a consumer, nor the University is rendering any service, relying on the decision given in the case of Bihar School Examination Board (supra).  Relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:

 

“The respondent as a student is neither a consumer nor is the appellant rendering any service.  The claim of the respondent to award B.Ed. 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.  The case decided by this Court in Bihar School Examination Board (supra) clearly lays down the law in this regard with which we find ourselves in full agreement with.  Accordingly, the entire exercise of entertaining the complaint by the District Forum and the award of relief which has been approved by the National Commission do not conform to law and we, therefore, set aside the same.”

 

9.       Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 17802 of 2017; Anupama College of Engineering Vs. Gulshan Kumar and others, decided on 30.10.2017, has held that in view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University (supra), wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments, has categorically held that educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there can not be a question of deficiency in service and such matter can not be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

10.     Hon’ble National Commission in its judgment rendered in the case of Director of Xavier Institute of Management & Entrepreneurship Kinfra Hi-Tech Park and others Vs. Sujay Ghose reported in III (2022) CPJ 6 (NC), has specifically held that the Educational Institute does not fall within purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as it is not rendering any services.  While coming to the above conclusion, Hon’ble National Commission has relied upon a decision of Larger Bench of three Members of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Manu Solanki and others Vs. Vinayak Mission University and other connected cases reported in I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC), wherein the Larger Bench has held that educational matters do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.

 

11.     Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case as well as the law laid down in the case of Bihar School Examination Board (supra); Maharshi Dayanand University (supra); Anupama College of Engineering (supra) and Director of Xavier Institute of Management & Entrepreneurship Kinfra     Hi-Tech Park and others (supra), it is crystal clear that the respondent No. 1 – University is neither “service provider”, nor the appellant – complainant being a student is a “consumer”.  Accordingly, we are of the view that the matter in question can not be brought before the Consumer Fora.

 

12.     For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that this appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed.       

 

13.     Appeal is dismissed.  No order as to costs.  However, the appellant – complainant, if so advised, may approach appropriate Forum having jurisdiction in the matter, in accordance with law.

 

14.     A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019.  The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.                      

 

 

(U.S. TOLIA)                            (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)

               Member-II                                                President

 

K