Haryana

Ambala

CC/236/2014

GAURAV SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

GURLUKULAM INSTITUTE - Opp.Party(s)

JAI DEEP PRASHAR

22 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

          Complaint Case No.:  236 of 2014

          Date of Institution    :  01.09.2014  

          Date of Decision      :    22.09.2015

Gaurav Singh s/o Shri Mohan Singh, Tokiyo, Sainwala Mubarkpur,Tehsil Ponta-Sahib, District Sirmour (H.P.).

                                                                       ….Complainant

                                                                                              Versus

1.       Gurukulam Institute for Technical Education, Kohra-Bhura (Bhurewala),Raipur Rani-Naraingarh Road, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala through its Chairman/authorized signatory, Sh. Sanjeev Aggarrwal.

2.       Sh. S.K.Jain, Principal, Gurukulam Institute for Technical Education, Kohra-Bhura (Bhurewala),Raipur Rani-Naraingarh Road, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.

                                                                                                                     ……Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:    SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                  

Present:       Sh. Jaideep Parashar, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Munish Kumar, Adv. counsel for Ops.

ORDER:

                   Present complaint has been filed by the complainant alleging therein that  he took admission in Electrical Trade for Diploma in Electronics & Communication Engineering, in the OP-college in July 2009 where the complainant was told by the Op that the said diploma is of six semesters and the complainant needs not to give exams for First & Second semesters since the complainant has already passed 10+2 in Electrical Trade.  The complainant paid Rs.50,600/- as fee alongwith other charges as demanded by the OP from time to time.   The complainant passed all the semesters for the said diploma course and last exam of sixth semester was conducted in December 2011 and result thereof

 was to be declared in February 2012. The complainant alleged that  the Ops failed to deliver the Detailed Marks Certificate of all the semester exams passed by the complainant despite repeated requests and ultimately, to release the said DMCs, the OP demanded Rs.10,000/- from the complainant. It has been  further alleged by the complainant that his career has been spoiled at the hands of Ops and he has suffered mental agony, harassment besides monetary loss  which is unfair trade practice  as well as deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Hence, the  present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and tendered  documents i.e. Detailed Marks Sheet pertaining to semesters of December-2010, June, 2011,December-2011 & June-2012 issued by the D.E.T-L(10+2 Vocational) alongwith cheque bearing No.130023 dated 02.12.2014 drawn at Punjab & Sind Bank qua security amount to the tune of Rs.15,00/- for handing over the same to the complainant as demanded in the complaint. On the other hand, counsel for the complainant received the aforesaid documents and cheque of Rs.15,00/- and prayed for granting compensation qua harassment etc. caused to complainant by the Ops.

                   Thereafter, Ops filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint, non-joinder of necessary parties.  On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant took admission in the year 2009 and he cleared the 3^rd, 4^th,5^th & 6^th semester exams in December 2010, June 2011, December 2011 & June 2012 respectively.  As the complainant had to appear in the  supplementary exams, the result of each semester is declared 3-4 months after the examination. OP No.1 received the DMC i.e. 3^rd to 6^th Semesters of the complainant on 27.10.2014 from the Board and thereafter the complainant was informed to collect the same but  he did not turn up, however, the provisional certificate was received by the complainant  on 27.11.2013 from the OP No.1. It has been further submitted that counsel for

Ops tendered the DMC of all the semesters and a cheque of Rs.1500/-(security amount) in the court and the complainant has received the same. Thus there is no unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                No evidence led by the parties.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and gone through the record very carefully. Before proceeding further, the foremost question arises for consideration before the Forum is “Whether the educational institutions are providing any service to the students?”

                   In P.T. Koshy & Anr. Versus Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. 2012(3) CPC 615 (SC), Hon’ble Apex court after referring to judgment Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 has held that education is not commodity and Educational 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. 

                   Further, in another case law titled as ICL Institute of Management and Technology Vs. Ranjit Singh & Anr. First Appeal No.166 of 2014 decided on 12.05.2014, our Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula has held that the complaint for refund of fees was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act before the Fora.

                   In view of the legal position enunciated above, present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, hence, the same is hereby partly dismissed to the extent of relief clause of compensation as the Ops have settled the main grievance of the complainant on first date of hearing by delivering the requisite DMCs & cheque of security refund. However, the complainant shall have liberty to raise his remaining grievance before the proper Forum or Civil Court, as per law.  Complainant can seek help for condonation of delay in accordance with law laid down in Luxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute reported in SCC 1995 (3) Pg. 583.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room. 

 Announced: 22.09.2015

                                                                                                                      Sd/-                            

                                                                                                            (A.K. SARDANA)

                                                                                                                 PRESIDENT 

                                                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                                         (PUSHPENDER KUMAR) 

                                                                                                                      MEMBER