DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.175 of 27-04-2011 Decided on 18-05-2011
Kuldeep Singh, aged about 26 years, son of Mander Singh, resident of village Kamalu Swaitch, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus IGNOU University (Indra Gandhi National Open University) Maidan Ghari, New Delhi, through its Vice Chancellor. IGNOU Regional Centre ITI Building Bulai Pur Khanna, District Ludhiana, through its Regional Director/Authorized person.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Ashwani Kumar, counsel for the complainant. Opposite parties not summoned. ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant joined TDC i.e. B.A course through the opposite party No.2 vide registration No.082492230 and has already completed the first and second year successfully. The complainant has completed all the formalities for the third year and deposited Rs.1,600/- on 27.03.2010 vide Bank draft with the opposite party No.2 and the same was withdrawn by the opposite party No.2 and assured him that it will forward the required papers of the complainant with the opposite party No.1 and the complainant shall be able to appear in the B.A. final exam to be held in June, 2011. The complainant time and again contacting the opposite party No.2 to know about the fate of his documents. He was told that the documents were forwarded to the concerned office and the complainant would get his required information for the examinations to be held in June, 2011 but till today, he has not received any information either from the opposite party No.1 or from the opposite party No.2 rather all the papers are to be conducted in the month of June, 2011 and due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party No.2, the complainant is unable to appear in the said examination. The examinations of the complainant were to be held at Study Centre, Nehru Memorial College, Mansa and on enquiry, it came to the knowledge of the complainant in the first week of January 2011 that in fact, there was no information with the said Nehru Memorial College, Mansa with regard to the complainant and that infact the opposite party No.1 has not sent the documents/papers to the concerned controller of examinations of the opposite party No.1 due to which the complainant's valuable year is likely to be wasted and the complainant has suffered financial loss as well as remained under mental shock and agony. The opposite party No.2 has failed to submit and forward the required admission papers/documents of the complainant to the concerned office. The officials of the Nehru Memorial College, Mansa told that now the examinations are to be held in the month of June 2011 and the opposite party No.1 can allow him to appear in the said examinations and prayed that interim order to that effect is issued directly the opposite parties to allow the complainant to appear in the said examination to held in June, 2011. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint with prayer to seek directions of this Forum to issued roll number and allow the complainant to take part in examination to be held in June 2011 alongwith cost and compensation. 2. Preliminary hearing is given to the complianant and record alongwith written submissions submitted by the complainant perused. 3. After going through the record and duly hearing the complainant, the main allegations of the complainant are that he has not got the roll number from the opposite party No.1 as the opposite party No.2 has failed to forward the papers/documents of the complainant to the opposite party No.1. Any dispute regarding the issuance of the roll number does not fall within the preview of the 'Act'. As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 2009 CTJ 1057 (SC)(CP) in case titled Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, wherein, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:- “Education – Consumer – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d) – Appeal – Section 23 – Complainant's son and another student allotted the same Roll No.496 by the appellant for the Bihar Secondary School Examination in 1998 – However, the Centre Superintendent added 'A' to his son's Roll No. making it 496A, which he duly communicated to the appellant's office at Patna – Result of the complainant's son not published – Hence, the boy suffered loss of one year as he had to reappear in the Board Examination the following year – Complainant prayed for compensation before the District Forum – In its reply the Board questioned the Forum's jurisdiction contending the complainant not to be a consumer – Complaint allowed directing the Board to pay compensation of Rs.12,000/- to the complainant with 12% interest – Board's appeal dismissed by the State Commission – Aggrieved, it moved the National Commission but without any success – Hence, the present appeal – Held that the Board is a statutory authority – Its function is to conduct school examination – This is its statutory function – This function involves holding periodical examination, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates – These are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function – It cannot be divided as partly statutory and partly administrative – Examination fee paid for the examination is not a consideration for availment of any service but a charge paid for participating in the examination – Held, the Board is not a 'service provider' nor the student who takes the examination a 'consumer' – Consequently, the complaint against the Board will not be maintainable – Appeal allowed – Impugned orders of the Forums below set aside.” 4. The opposite party Nos.1&2 i.e. University and its branch are not a service provider and does not fall within the definition of the service under the 'Act' and the complainant is not a consumer of the University. 5. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is dismissed in limini without any order as to cost. The complainant is at liberty to file the present complaint in the Court/Forum of competent territorial jurisdiction, if the law permits. 6. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ' Pronounced in open Forum 18-05-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member (Amarjeet Paul) Member |
