Haryana

StateCommission

A/919/2015

PANKAJ VERMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

GENIOUS INFOTECH - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.VERMA

21 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                    

First Appeal No  :      919 of 2015

Date of Institution:     21.10.2015

Date of Decision :      21.01.2016

 

Pankaj Verma s/o Sh. Manphool Verma, r/o Gali No.1, Mohalla Gaushala, Sirsa.

                                       Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Genious Infotech, Dwarka Puri, near Head Post Office, Sirsa through its Proprietor/Manager/Incharge Anil Dhanuka.

2.      Jain College of Management and Technology, Mandi Adampur, District Hisar through its Chairman/Director/Owner/Principal /President.

3.      JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Partap Nagar, Udeypur, Rajasthan through its Director.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

 

Present:              Shri Sushil Kumar Verma, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          Pankaj Verma-complainant has challenged the correctness and legality of the order dated September 17^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed. 

2.      The complainant got admission in the institute of the respondents in BCA course.  The respondents did not supply final marks sheet, degree of BCA and detailed marks certificate of first and second semester to the appellant due to interse dispute between the respondents.

3.      The dispute is between the complainant and the Educational Institute. So, the issue before this Commission is as to whether or not the question of deficiency in service arises?

4.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihar School Examination Board versus Suresh Prasad Sinha, IV (2009) C.P.J. 34 (SC) 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 & Universities are not ‘Service Provider’ and the complaints against them are not maintainable under the Act.

5.      In P.T. Koshy & Anr. Versus Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., 2012(3) C.P.C. 615 (S.C.) Hon’ble Apex Court after referring to judgment Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur 2010(11) SCC 159 held that education is not commodity and Educational institutions are not providing any service. Therefore, in the matter of admission, fee etcetera, there cannot be a question of deficiency in service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Fora under the Act.

6.      In view of the legal position enunciated above, the complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum. As such, the District Forum rightly passed the impugned order. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.  However, the complainant shall have liberty to seek his grievances before the proper forum or Civil Court, as per law.  He can seek help for condonation of delay in accordance with law laid down in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute – 1995(3) SCC 583.

 

Announced 21.01.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK