Ms. Shruti Bhartiya                 V/s             Indira Gandhi National

                                                                                                           Open University

Since none has been appearing on behalf of the Complainant notice for pairavi was issued to her vide dispatch No.24 dated 06.01.17 for 01.02.17. The same has been received back unserved with the postal report “no such person”. Thereafter also none has appeared on behalf of the Complainant. Pleadings are complete. Evidence of the parties is also complete. Hence, we proceed to decide the case on merits.

Grievance of the complainant, in nutshell, is that the OP despite making assurances never meant to be carried out did not send to her I Card, study material and other particulars though the complainant had paid the requisite fee of Rs.6800/- alongwith late fee charges of Rs.200/- to the OP vide demand draft dated 03.08.09.

In the reply the OP besides controverting the averments made in the complaint has pleaded that the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act and hence the complaint be dismissed.  The OP has placed a reliance on a judgment in Unni Krishan case.

 In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Unni Krishan Vs Sate of A. P. 1993 (1) SSC 645, Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha (2009) 8 SCC 483 and Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, MANU/SC/0485/2010 : 2010 (11) SCC 159 , the Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

          A copy of this order be sent to the parties through speed post. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on 01.05.17.