BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 168 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 24.07.2020
Date of Decision : 30.10.2023.
Mrs. Ekta Garg daughter of Shri Pawan Garg, resident of H. No. 29A, Additional Mandi, Stadium Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa ( w/o Pardeep Bansal).
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra through its Registrar.
2. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra through its Controller of Examinations.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ashish Singla, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite party (hereinafter referred as OP) with the averments that complainant is a student of LL.M of the University of op under Registration No. 07-PCD-5902 and had paid the admission and examination fee to the University and in this manner, the complainant is consumer of the services provided by the University. That she had appeared for LL.M. (Previous Exam) in May, 2019 and LL.M. Part 2 Exam in May, 2019 under Roll No. 3783701 and 3779106 respectively. It is further averred that she had passed both her exams vide result dated 25.09.2019 and had received her result cum detailed marks card bearing No. 000275 Sr. No. 1540753 dated 17.10.2019 for LL.M. Previous Exam of May, 2019 and DMC No. 000541 Sr. No. 1540487 dated 31.10.2019 for LL.M. Part 2 exam. That surprisingly on receipt of the DMCs she noticed that the photo of the student printed on the DMCs is not that of her rather it is of some other student. It is further averred that she immediately contacted at the office of the op for issuance of corrected DMCs by printing the photo of the complainant but she was asked to apply for the same was required to deposit fee for that purpose. That when she asked them that it was not her mistake, it was told to her that it is a procedure and may take time. The complainant got issued a legal notice to the op on 20.12.2019 in this regard but a vague reply dated 10.01.2020 was received from the ops and they required the complainant to apply through form alongwith requisite fee. In this manner, the ops are not ready to rectify their mistake and reissue the DMCs and the act and conduct of the ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on account of which the complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, ops appeared and filed written version submitting therein that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Bihar School Education Board Versus Suresh Prasad Sinha, IV (2009) CPJ 34 has held that the Education Boards and Universities are not “Service Provider”, hence said candidate is not a consumer of the University. It is submitted that photograph printed on the DMC was of some other student and this happened due to some clerical mistake/ technical error. That University has a well established procedure (printed on the backside of the DMC) with regard to any discrepancy in DMC which says that “in case of any discrepancy, the Result-cum- Detailed Marks Card should be returned for replacement to this office within two months from the date of dispatch. No application will be entertained thereafter”. It is further submitted that complainant did not approach their office for correction of DMC and the University is always ready to facilitate the students. It is further submitted that their office did not deny the correction in above said DMC rather the candidate was informed telephonically to return the DMC of LLM Final which can be corrected at that time as it was issued on 31.10.2019 but the candidate did not return the same within two months and after that in reply to legal notice, their office informed the candidate regarding procedure of re-issue of DMC after 60 days and the prescribed period of two months have been elapsed. It is further submitted that their office received a legal notice dated 20.12.2019 and a proper reply was sent on 10.01.2020 and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as candidate is not a consumer. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
3. The complainant in evidence has tendered her affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6.
4. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Dr. Sanjeev Sharma, Registrar as Ex.R1.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file.
6. In this case, the main and foremost issue is that whether this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint, because the OPs have raised objection that complainant is not a consumer and this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint. In this case, the complainant is seeking correction of her DMCs and the ops have asserted that the complainant has not adopted the procedure for correction of her DMCs and has not returned the same within time. It is to be seen whether complaint is maintainable against the education institution or not. The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the ops which is University and an educational institution imparting education. The pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble NCDRC in cases P.T. Koshy & Anr. vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC); Anupama College of Engineering vs. Gulshan Kumar and Ors. Civil Appeal Nos. 17802 and 17803 of 2017 decided on 30.10.2017; Maharishi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur (2010) 11 SCC 159; Manu Solanki and others vs. Vinayaka Mission University I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC); Rajendra Kumar Gupta vs. Swarup Public School 2021 (1) CPJ (NC) 368 are relevant regarding issue whether the complaint against the educational institution can be entertained by the consumer commission or not. The perusal of above judgments clearly goes to show that it has been held in said judgments that education is not commodity and service imparting education institution cannot be held to be service provider and student cannot be said to be a consumer. Therefore, consumer commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter pertaining to the deficiency of service by educational institutions.
7. In view of above said reasons and well settled legal position regarding dispute involved in this complaint, the present complaint is dismissed but with no order as to costs. However, complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate court of law for redressal of her grievance, as per law, if so advised. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced : Member President,
Dated: 30.10.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
