:    J U D G M E N T    :

This is the case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.  The facts of the case to put in a nutshell, are as below:-

The complainant, Sarbeswar Mandal took admission of Diploma in Electrocardiography Technology (DECGT) in the OP’s Institute under name and style Dr. K.R. Adhikary College of Optometry and Paramedical Technology at Kalyani, Nadia on 07.08.2013.  The duration of the course was 1 year and fees involved of the course was Rs. 27,000/-.  OP promised to make practical class in this course by his specialist teacher, but no class was made to that effect.  On the contrary no ECG theory class was done by the OP.  The OP institution did not provide drinking water or other facilities required for this course.   In this matter the complainant informed verbally so many times but to no effect.  As the OP did not keep his words for the course, the complainant finding no other alternative filed this case praying for total fees of Rs. 27,000/- along with interest compensation and other reliefs as stated in the complaint.

OP, General Secretary of Dr. K.R. Adhikary College of Optometry and Paramedical Technology files a written version on 16.12.2014 denying all the allegation made by the complainant.  The sum and substance of the written version is stated below:-

The present complaint is not maintainable in its present form and law.  The complainant has no cause of action to file this petition.  The complaint is misconceived, malafide and groundless and unsustainable in law.  The complaint is motivated and harassing.  OP has stated that he runs the college after obtaining affiliation from the University of Kalyani.  The complainant took admission for the course Diploma in Electrocardiography Technique for the session 2013 – 2014, but the complainant was irregular in the  college and was absent during the course and he was also less interested in his curriculum as the course structure found to be tuff for him.  Furthermore, the allegation for drinking water and other facilities is false.  The OP is still agree to give special class to the complainant’s benefit till the completion of the course.  So the OP has no negligence or deficiency in service and thus, the case may be rejected with cost as per Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

POINTS FOR DECISION

1. Point No. 1:   Is the complainant a consumer?
2. Point No. 2:   Has OP negligently operated upon the complainant?
3. Point No. 3:   What relief the complainant is entitled to get?

REASOND DECISIONS

            For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.

            It is admitted that that the complainant paid the consideration amount of Rs. 26,150/- to the OP on the different dates for one year Diploma Course of Electro Cardiography Technology and to that effect the receipts were issued by the OP.

            It is fact that Admit Card was issued by the OP in favour of the complainant for the admission test for the period 2013-2014 which is clearly revealed from the Admit Card issued on 30.08.2013.  So it is true that the complainant was a student under the opposite party educational institution.  It is true that the OP is an affiliated Institution of Kalyani University since 2003 which is clear from the certificate issued by University of Kalyani dtd. 15.05.2012.

            It is crystal clear that the result / marksheet for pre-optometry and pre-technology Exam, 2014 (6 months course) was declared by University of Kalyani and the complainant has obtained marks 143 out of 300  and he has passed without division which is clearly revealed form the Mark-sheet issued by University of Kalyani, Dtd. 28.08.2014.   Registration Certificate was also given to the complainant who was admitted in Diploma in Electro Cardiography Technique and he is registered as a student of this University.  His registration No. is 010557 of 2013-2014 which is clearly reveled from the registration certificate issued by University of Kalyani. 

            OP also filed a list of lecturers who were engaged to provide education on different subject matter to the complainant. 

            Complainant also made allegation that the OP Institution did not provide drinking water or other facilities for this course.  But it is fact that a classic water filter come purifier was purchased by the OP on 31.03.2009 which is clearly shown from Tax invoice issued by Eureka Forbs Ltd.   In this connection we have also perused invoice cum receipt for service contract dtd. 09.05.2014 issued by Eureka Forbs Ltd. and also perused 3-year AMC contract for water purifier dtd.  07.05.14.  From these documents, we hold that the OP made proper arrangement for providing drinking water in their Institution.

            From the above discussion, it is true that the OP received Rs. 26,150/- as consideration from the complainant for imparting education for said one-year course.  It is also fact that OP provided proper education to the complainant.  OP has also completed said one-year course successfully.   The complainant has also completed his one-year course and has taken knowledge and training from the OP in respect of said course, i.e., DECGT.  So when course fees are collected from the complainant for imparting education and OP has provided / imparted education to the complainant successfully then it does not amount to deficiency in service on the part of OP as per our view.  Again we can discuss this matter by applying the following rulings.

1. In Behar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha IV (2009) CPJ 34 SC wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Board / University is a statutory Authority which does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  When the board / university is to conduct any examination it does not offer any service to the student.
2. In Maharsi Dyananda University vs. Surjit Kaur (2010) 11 SCC 159, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is the settled legal proposition that neither the court nor any tribunal has the competence to issue a direction contrary to law and to act in contravention of a statutory provision.  The court has no competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor the court can direct an authority to act in contravention of statutory provision.  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 is the nature of a relief praying for a direction to the appellant to act contrary to its own rules.  District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain any such complaint.  The appeal is accordingly allowed.  The judgment and order passed by District Forum and Hon'ble National Commission are set aside.  No cost.  S

In the instant case it is clear that the name of the complainant is registered as a student of the University of Kalyani and he bears registration No. 010557 of 2013-2014. 

So on the basis of the above discussion we come to conclusion and hold that this instant case does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.  So the case fails.

Hence,

Ordered,

That, the case CC/2014/141 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP without cost.

Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.