Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/772

Rahul Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Govt. Randhir College - Opp.Party(s)

Rajbir Singh

09 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No. 772 of 2012

 

                                                Date of Institution :  08.06.2012.

                             Date of Decision    : 09.02.2015.

 

Rahul Jindal son of Yashpal Jindal, C/o Yash Boot House, Sunami Gate, Sangrur.

                                                     …..Appellant/complainant.

Versus

 

1.       Government Ranbir College, Sangrur through its Principal

2.       Punjabi University, Patiala through its Registrar.

                                                     ….Respondents/opposite parties

    

Appeal against order dated 25.04.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

 

Quorum:-

 

     Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

             Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.   

Present:-

 

     For the appellant             :     None

For the respondent No.1  :     None

For the respondent No.2 :     Dr. B.M. Singh, Advocate

   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                                 

                    The appellant (complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondents herein (opposite parties in the complaint) challenging order dated 25.04.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sangrur (in short, “the District Forum”), dismissing the complaint of the complainant/appellant.

2.           The complainant Rahul Jindal has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short "Act") against the OPs on the averments that he applied for admission in BA part III for the session of 2010-2011 with OP No.1, as a regular candidate after purchasing prospect-cum-admission form. On submission of requisite documents by him, vide application form No.1885, the complainant became consumer of the OPs. The complainant was directed by OPs to deposit admission fee of BA Part III after one week after getting approval from Punjabi University Patiala before the last date 05.08.2010. OP No.1 told the complainant that approval has not yet been received from OP No.2 Punjabi University Patiala and hence complainant had to wait for some time. The last date for admission was 05.08.2010 and the complainant moved an application dated 23.08.2010 to OP No.1 seeking information under Right to Information Act of this matter. OP No.1 blamed the complainant instead of admitting its fault. The OPs falsely involved him in the unfair means case against rules. The complainant has filed this consumer complaint directing the OPs to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as damages, Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
3.           Upon notice, OPs appeared and contested the complaint of the complainant. OP No.1 raised preliminary objections that complainant is not consumer of OP No.1 in its separate written reply. It was pleaded that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and the complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it was further averred that complainant submitted the admission form for his admission in BA Part III for the year 2010-2011 in Govt. Ranbir College Sangrur and the receipt was duly issued to him. It further pleaded that the admission committee intimated the complainant that he would be considered for admission after getting clearance of unfair means case, which was registered against him in the University Exams in April 2009. The complainant also moved an application under RTI in this case. The admission was not granted to the complainant, as unfair means case was pending against him, which has not yet been cleared by the Punjabi University Patiala and no approval was granted by OP No.2. OP No.1, thus, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.           OP No.2 Punjabi University Patiala also filed its separate written reply alleging that complainant is not its consumer and there is no deficiency in service on its part. It pleaded that the complainant never approached OP No.2. As per record, the complainant was found using mobile phone in History-A paper on 18.04.2009 and unfair means case was made against him and complainant was called before the committee constituted, in this regard. The complainant was found guilty under Section 13 and 14 of the University Exams and was debarred for 2 years period from giving any exam. The complainant was eligible to appear in April 2011 and committee sent its decision to the complainant, vide registered letter dated 07.01.2010. It controverted the other averments made in the complaint by the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.           The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 along with documents Ex.C-2 to C-9 and closed the evidence. As against it, the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of A.S. Chawla, Registrar Punjabi University Patiala Ex.R-1, affidavit of Shrikrishan Kaushak, Principal, Government Ranbir College Sangrur Ex.R-2, affidavit of Mrs. Neeru Singh, Associate Professor, Government Ranbir College Sangrur Ex.R-3, Ex.R-4 is the letter sent to the complainant intimating him regarding the conditions in UMC case, Ex.R-5 & R-13 is the order of the committee debarring the complainant from appearing in the exams for two years, Ex.R-6 to R-12 are the application form and its part, Ex.of complainant, Ex.R-14 is the letter and other documents Ex.R-15 to R-31 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and argument, The District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant. Dissatisfied with this order of the District Forum, the complainant now appellant has come up in this appeal against the same.
6.           We have heard the counsel for respondent No.2 in this appeal, as none appeared for the appellant and respondent No.1. We proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of its merits. The complainant wanted to get admission in BA Part III with OP No.1 and when it was not granted, he felt aggrieved with it and filed this consumer complaint against the OPs. This is purely a matter pertaining to education. The Apex Court has held that education is not commodity and it is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The education is imparted by the Educational Institutions and complainant is not consumer in this regard. We are fortified by law laid down by Apex Court in P.T. Koshy & Anr.   Vs.  Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. 2012(3) CPC-615, which is to this effect:-

          " In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand     University   Vs.  Srujeet Kaur 2010(11) SCC 159= 2010(2) CPC 696           S.C. wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has       categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational           Institutions are not providing any kind of service; therefore, in matter   of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of      service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer        Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."

7.           Even, otherwise there is no question of discrimination against the complainant in this case. The complainant was found guilty of unfair means in this case and was debarred from appearing in exams for two years. The conduct of the complainant itself is not beyond reproach. Educational Institution cannot be forced to admit the type of candidate, whose record is not clean. So, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and documents on the record and the order of the Committee debarring the complainant from appearing in exams for two years and in view of law laid down by Apex Court that in educational matters (Supra), the complainant would not be a consumer of the educational institution. The complaint of the complainant is not maintainable, it has rightly been dismissed by the District Forum in this case. The order of the District Forum is accordingly affirmed in this appeal by us.
8.           In the light of our above discussions, we hereby dismiss the appeal of the complainant now appellant.
9.           Arguments in this appeal were heard on 06.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.     The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                                   (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

February  09, 2015.                                                                                   

(MM)