DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No. 340/08

Mrs. Asha Khare,

J-65, Sarita Vihar,

New Delhi – 110025                                       -Complainant   

                                Vs

Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU),

(Through Vice Chancellor)

Maidan Garhi, New Delhi – 68                           -Opposite Party

                                    Date of Institution: 30.05.08

                                    Date of Order:        20.01.16

Coram:

N.K. Goel, President

Naina Bakshi, Member

O R D E R

        Present  complaint has been filed by alleging discrimination against the OP University for not following the uniformity in policy of awarding the grace marks on the basis of grading and marking scheme of grace point range in the TEE 2004.  The complainant who had been pursuing PGDDE program offered by the OP University since academic session 2004 was awarded ‘D’ grade and  declared as failed and she was not given  0.05% point grade to pass it.  As per the Ordinance on Conduct of Examination and Evaluation of student performance as amended on Nov. 25, 1994 vide resolution 39.6.3, PGDDE students need to pass continuous assessment with at least an average grade ‘D’ and the corresponding TEE  with at least a grade ‘C’ and the same is further confirmed by the University manual of SRE, programme guide and the prospectus of PGDDE.  It is pleaded that the OP has arbitrarily passed some of the students having grade ‘D’ in TEE stating that “some students declared successful with D grade in TEE since they were enrolled prior to year 2004 as per the decision of the academic council”.  According to the complainant, the aforesaid stand of the SRE is wrong and malafide as the Academic Council cannot take the decision in violation of University ordinance in this regard which was amended in 1994 and implemented in 1995.  By claiming deficiency in service and monopolistic trade practice approach by the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint to direct the OP to pass the complainant by implementing the University policy of awarding the grace marks on the basis of grading and marking scheme of grace point range in the TEE 2004 itself,  to compensate the complainant @ 375/- per month for the loss suffered by the complainant in terms of loss in salary due to non passing of the PGDDE course and/or to direct the OP to pay an exemplary cost of Rs. 75,000/- towards damages, harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the acts of OP and also to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as litigation cost.

        In the written statement, OP has inter-alia stated that the present complaint is without any cause of action.  It is submitted that the students pursuing studies do not come under the category of the ‘Consumer’.  It is specifically denied that there is any violation of mandatory norms of the University.   It is stated that the student prior to the batch of 2004 was declared passed as per rule of that period It is submitted that awarding Grace Marks of 0.05 point grade will not make successful to the complainant in term-end examination in the course ES-318 as the complainant has been awarded “D” grade in term-end examination in this course.  However,  in order to clarify the position of this case, it is mentioned that the equivalent point grade of letter grade “D” is “2” in a 5 point scale and awarding 0.05 point grade as Grace mark will make the point grade to “2.05”, whereas the minimum grade required to complete the term-end examination is “C” and its equivalent point grade is “3”.  Deficiency in service has been denied.  It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

        Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement.

        Affidavit of the complainant has been filed in evidence.  On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. U.S. Tolia, Registrar has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP. .

        Written arguments have been filed.

        We have heard counsel for the complainant and Proxy Counsel for the OP and have also carefully perused the file.

        The contention raised on behalf of the complainant is that the complainant is a consumer  and the dispute raised by her in the complaint is a consumer dispute and, therefore, the relief sought by the complainant be granted to her.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant has made a reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, AIR 1995 SC 1428 : 1995 SCC (3) 583. On the other hand, the contention raised on behalf of the OP is that the OP is a Government University and is imparting education but it does not provide any services to the students and, hence, complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

        We agree with the contention raised on behalf of the OP.

        Facts of the case relied on by the counsel for the complainant are entirely different from the facts of the present case.

        In Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, MANU/SC/0485/2010 : 2010 (11) SCC 159, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that education is not a commodity; educational institutions are not providing any kind of service and, therefore, in the matter of admission, fees, etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service and such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  When education is not a commodity, the question raised by the complainant in the complaint on the same analogy cannot be looked into and decided by this Forum.  Secondly, in our considered opinion for the purposes of deciding whether the OP University, who is admittedly a Government University, had made a discrimination amongst the equally placed students or there was some reasonable differentia for making the distinction, the terms of the University policy in question have to be interpreted and it has to be decided whether the said policy has to be implemented in the case of the complainant which, in our considered opinion, is beyond the powers of this Forum who has to decide the complaints in a summary manner.  Therefore, we hold that the complaint is without any merit.  

        In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

         Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

(NAINA BAKSHI)                                                       v                                                                                    (N. K. GOEL)      MEMBER                                                                                                                                                          PRESIDENT

Announced on 20.01.16.

Case No. 340/08

20.1.2016

Present –   None

        Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed.  Let the file be consigned to record room.

(NAINA BAKSHI)                                                                                                                                            (N.K. GOEL)

    MEMBER                                                                                                                                                         PRESIDENT