MOHAMMAD ANAITULLAH filed a consumer case on 07 Aug 2015 against E-MAX in the Ambala Consumer Court. The case no is CC/98/2013 and the judgment uploaded on 24 Aug 2015.
CC No.99 of 2013
Jahangir Ali Vs. E-Max Polytechnical
Present: None for complainant.
Sh. Tarun Kalra, Adv. counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. A.N. Manocha, Adv. counsel for OP No.2.
Op No.3 exparte.
None for Op No.4.
Case called several times since morning but none has put in appearance on behalf of complainant. Let the case be taken up at 12.50 P.M.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member President
07.08.2015
Present: None for complainant.
Sh. Tarun Kalra, Adv. counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. A.N. Manocha, Adv. counsel for OP No.2.
Op No.3 exparte.
None for Op No.4.
Case taken up at 12.50 P.M. Case called repeatedly but neither complainant nor his counsel has put in appearance. In the interest of justice, the case be again taken up at 2.30 P.M.
Sd/ Sd/-
Member President
07.08.2015
Present: None for complainant.
Sh. Tarun Kalra, Adv. counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. A.N. Manocha, Adv. counsel for OP No.2.
Op No.3 exparte.
None for Op No.4.
Case taken up at 2.30 P.M. and called repeatedly but this time also neither complainant nor his counsel has put in appearance. The conduct of the complainant reveals that he is not interested in pursuing the present compliant. Even otherwise, the present complaint is also not maintainable in light of the decision rendered In P.T. Koshy & Anr. Versus Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. 2012(3) CPC 615 (SC) and Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 wherein it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that education is not commodity and Education institutions are not providing any service. Therefore, in the matter of admission, fee etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency in service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further in case titled as Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Parshad Sinha, reported in CPJ 2009(IV) Pg.34 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme court has held that the examination fee paid by student is not a consideration for availment of service, but charge paid for privilege of participation in examination. It has also been held that education Boards and universities are not ‘Service provider’ and the complaints against them are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.
In view of the above, present complaint is dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant as well as on merits. Copies of this order be sent to parties concerned free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.
Sd/- Sd/-
Announced: 07.08.2015. Member President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.