DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.316 of 21-11-2018

Decided on 30-05-2019

Narinder Jindal aged about 38 years S/o Chhota Ram S/o Lal Chand R/o House No.1077, Gali No.5/3D, Baba Farid Nagar, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Government I.T.I, Bathinda Near I.T.I Chowk, Bathinda.

2.R.D.A.T, 3^rd Floor, A Wing, New C.F.O Building, N.H-4, Faridabad, Haryana-121001.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Manisha, Member.

Present:-

Complainant: Sh.Narinder Jindal in person.

For opposite party No.1: Sh.Kulwinder Kaur, A.R.

For opposite party No.2: Sh.Chander Mohan, Advocate.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Narinder Jindal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Government I.T.I and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that he had completed three courses connected with electrical from opposite party No.1. These courses are Basic Electrical Repair of Home Appliance.

3. It is alleged that the complainant deposited Rs.2400/- i.e. Rs.800/- per course with opposite party No.1. This amount is refundable. He wanted this amount back, but management of opposite party No.1 is intentionally not refunding amount and harassing him.

4. It is further alleged that on 22.2.2017, the complainant sought information under RTI Act regarding arrears, but no reply was received. Thereafter he preferred appeal on 15.7.2017 wherein on 24.8.2017, opposite party No.1 admitted that a sum of Rs.2400/- is payable to the complainant and this amount has not been received from opposite party No.2. Thereafter he also sought information under RTI on 12.9.2017 from Faridabad. Reply was not received. Hence, this complaint is filed for refund of Rs.2400/- with interest and compensation.

5. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their respective counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version.

6. In the written version, opposite party No.1 has raised the legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable. The matter is related to R.D.A.T (opposite party No.2) and Chief Executive Officer-cum-Director, Punjab State Skill Development Society, Chandigarh. The complainant is not 'consumer'. It is admitted that he completed 3 short term courses related to electrical sector. Payment of fees is also not denied.

   It is also pleaded that the complainant has completed the courses from I.T.I, Bathinda by part time. I.T.I, Bathinda is recognized by Government of India.

7. It is further mentioned that opposite party No.1 is working as vocational training provider at the directions of Chief Executive Officer-cum-Director, Punjab State Skill Development Society, Directorate Technical Education and Training Department, Punjab, Chandigarh and Regional Directorate of Apprenticeship Training R.D.A.T, Faridabad. Opposite party No.2 makes allotment of training batch number, assessment batch number and assessing bodies. Training charges and reimbursement of fees are made by opposite party No.2. Fees of Rs.2400/- deposited by the complainant was paid to assessing bodies allotted by opposite party No.2. Thereafter bills are presented by V.T.Ps to opposite party No.2 for reimbursement and on reimbursement, payment is made to V.T.Ps. Opposite party No.1 has repeatedly requested P.S.S.D.S, R.D.A.T and assessing bodies vide e-mails for refund of fees, so that same may be released to trainees, but no refund/response has been received. All other averments are denied. In the end, opposite party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8. In the written version, opposite party No.2 has raised the preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus-standi and cause-of-action to file the complaint. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 is part of Union of India. The complainant has not impleaded 'Union of India' as necessary party. He is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conducts. The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has passed his course from vocational training provider, Govt. ITI Bathinda (VTP), which is governed by state government, so Skill Development Initiative Scheme (SDIS) based on Modular Employable Skills, implementation manual (September 2010) clearly depicts that respective State/UT will make payment. As such, in the light of these circumstances, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against opposite party No.2.

   Further preliminary objections are that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. He does not fall under the provisions of 'consumer' as defined under 'Act'. The intricate question is involved in this complaint, so the dispute should be relegated to the civil court. The complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum and has filed this complaint on wrong facts just to harass and humiliate opposite party No.2 and to grab the money illegally.

9. On merits, opposite party No.2 has controverted all other averments and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10. Parties were asked to produce the evidence.

11. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of letter, (Ex.C1); photocopies of RTI information and letter, (Ex.C2 and Ex.C3); photocopies of notes, (Ex.C4 and Ex.C5) and his affidavit dated 21.11.2018, (Ex.C6).

12. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence photocopies of letters, (Ex.OP1/1, Ex.OP1/2, Ex.OP1/4 to Ex.OP1/6, Ex.OP1/11 and Ex.OP1/14); photocopy of instructions, (Ex.OP1/3); photocopies of e-mails, (Ex.OP1/7 to Ex.OP1/10, Ex.OP1/12 and Ex.OP1/13).

13. Opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Partap Singh dated 8.1.2019, (Ex.OP2/1); photocopy of implementation manual with letter, (Ex.OP2/2) and photocopy of RTI application with reply, (Ex.OP2/3).

14. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully.

15. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his averments as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that the material facts are admitted. It is admitted that a sum of Rs.2400/- received from the complainant is refundable. Moreover opposite party No.1 has also offered to refund Rs.800/- against one course. This fact further corroborates that the complainant is entitled to refund of deposited amount. Of-course, opposite party No.1 has pleaded that it has not received amount from the concerned quarter, but the complainant is not to suffer for this lapse.

16. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 and 2 has submitted that the complaint does not fall within ambit of 'consumer'. Institutes are governed by Government rules and regulations. Course was started by Government under various schemes. As such, matter does not fall within ambit of 'consumer'.

    To support these submissions, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 and 2 has cited MJP Rohilkhand University Vs. Ravinder Kumar Jaiswal, II (2019) CPJ 40 (NC) and Frenkfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training & Anr. Vs. Aashima Jarial, II (2019) CPJ 255 (NC).

17. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions and gone through the case law cited by learned counsel for opposite party No.2.

18. Since opposite parties have pleaded that education does not fall within purview of 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986' and complainant is not 'consumer' as defined under 'Act'. Therefore, before coming to the controversy on merits, it is to be seen that whether the complainant covers under definition of 'consumer' or not as defined under 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986'.

19. It is relevant to mention that the complainant has claimed refund of deposited amount as per rules and regulations of opposite parties regarding refund of fees. Opposite parties have also quoted that they have to refund fees as per rules.

    In case of MJP Rohilkhand University (Supra), it is observed that statutory institutes are exempted from provision of 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986'.

    Similarly, in case of Frenkfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training & Anr. (Supra), it was also noticed that educational institutions covered under UGC, AICTE, State Universities, Central Boards and State Boards etc. can claim immunity from the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for educational services.

20. It is not in dispute that opposite parties are covered under Government of Punjab and central Govt.. Therefore, in the light of above observations of Hon'ble National Commission, the complainant does not fall under definition of 'consumer'. As such, the complaint is not maintainable. As complainant does not fall within the definition of 'consumer', therefore, this Forum is not to record any findings on main controversy.

21. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.

22. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

23. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    30-05-2019

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Manisha)

    Member