DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

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

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

  Case No. 388/2011

Saquib Saifi

S/o Mohd. Ghalib

R/o H.No. 334, Pocket-E, Phase-II

Mayur Vihar, Delhi                                                   -Complainant     

                                      Vs

1.  Jagannath Institute of Management Sciences (JIMS)                    

     Though its Chairman

2.  The Director

     Jagannath Institute of Management Sciences (JIMS)

     Both offices at

     34,Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-24.

3.  Vice Chancellor

     Guru Jambheshwar University (G.J.U)

     Hisar, Haryana.                                                    -Opposite Parties  

                                           Date of Institution: 13.10.2011                                                    Date of Order:        07.04.2016

Coram:

N.K. Goel, President

Naina Bakshi, Member

S.S. Fonia, Member               

O R D E R

          The matter has been kept pending till 12.30 p.m.

        The counsel for OP-1 & 2 has submitted that the complaint may be dismissed in default keeping in view the fact that none has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since long.  We also find that none has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since long.

        However, since the matter is at final arguments stage, we proceed to decide the same.  Heard.

        The complainant has filed the present complaint for award of Rs. 5 lacs as compensation against the financial as well as professional and educational losses suffered by him on account of 15 months’ delay in giving mark-sheet to him by the OPs.

        In their joint written statement, OP-1 & 2 and separate written statement of OP-3 have assigned the reasons for not giving the mark-sheet  to the complainant with time.

        OP-3 has also taken a plea that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act as OP-3 is a University.

        Admittedly, OP-3 is a University.  Therefore, in our considered opinion,  keeping in view  the case law laid down in Bihar School Examination Board Vs Suresh Prasad Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC 483 and Maharashi Dayanand University Vs Surjeet Kaur,  2010 (11) SCC 159, OPs are not an educational institution nor complainant is a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.  Therefore, we hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

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

        Copy of this order be given Dasti to the counsel for OP-1 & 2 and one copy each be sent to the complainant and OP-3 through speed post. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room.

(NAINA BAKSHI)                                                                        (S.S.FONIA)                                                                  (N. K. GOEL)      MEMBER                                                                                       MEMBER                                                                         PRESIDENT

Announced on  07.04.16.

Case No. 388/11

7.4.2016

Present –   None for complainant.

                Ms. Jasmeet Kaur Bajaj, Adv. for OP-1 & 2.

                None for OP-3. 

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

(NAINA BAKSHI)                                                                        (S.S.FONIA)                                                                  (N. K. GOEL)      MEMBER                                                                                   MEMBER                                                                        PRESIDENT