Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/159

Shraya Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lovely Professonal University - Opp.Party(s)

Amitoj Khera Adv.

06 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                            Complaint No:  159 of 01.03.2016.

                                                            Date of Decision: 06.03.2017.

Shreya Jain aged 23 years daughter of Shri Rajesh Jain, resident of House No.6467, Naveen Nagar, Jassian Road, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana.                                                                                                         ..… Complainant

                                                  Versus

1. Directorate of Distance Education, Lovely Professional University, Jalandhar-Delhi G.T. Road (NH-1), Phagwara, Punjab through its Director.
2. G-Tech, Adjoining Amartex, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

…..Opposite parties 

                              Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH. PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant               :         Sh. Amitoj Khera, Advocate.

For OP1                           :         Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate.

For OP2                           :         Exparte.

ORDER

PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT

1.                 Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred as Act) filed by complainant by pleading that she got admission in university of OP1 through Directorate of Distant Education  vide Regn. No.21400300074 for doing Master of Arts in English through OP2. Entire fees were paid by complainant and even requisite documents were submitted. Complainant was found eligible to appear in the examination, due to which she appeared in examination of Ist year for the Session 2014-2015. Result of complainant was not disclosed/displayed for the reasons best known to OP1. Efforts for knowing the result were made, but to no effect. At the time of filing of the complaint, complainant was not allowed admission in IInd year without assigning any reason. Complainant submitted various correspondence through email or otherwise, but to no effect. Though university under legal obligation to disclose/display the result after providing admission in second year, but same has not been done and as such, after serving legal  notice  dated 03.02.2016 through counsel, this complaint filed by pleading deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of Ops. Prayer made for directing Ops to disclose the result of Ist year and supply the detail marks card. Even direction sought against the OPs to allow the complainant to appear in IInd year examination to be held in June 2016. Compensation for mental pain, agony, harassment, humiliation of Rs.80,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- more claimed.

2.                 In written statement filed by OP1, it is pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable because university is not a service provider, due to which complainant is not a consumer within meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Besides it is claimed that complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction because neither head office nor any branch office of the University is located within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Rather university is situate in District Kapurthala and as such, courts at Kapurthala alone has jurisdiction. In fact the complainant applied for admission to pursue Master of Arts (English) programme for 2014 at LPU (OP1), on the basis of eligibility qualification i.e. graduation degree. However, complainant did not submit the complete documents pertaining to completion and passing of her Graduation Degree at that time. Complainant undertook through writing dated 24.07.2014 to submit the documents by 30.11.2014. Through that undertaking, it was made clear that in the event of failure of complainant to submit the documents by stipulated date, the university reserves right to cancel admission of complainant. Complainant was given provisional admission to pursue the said programme of study at the university, but subject to the compliance of the undertaking. However, complainant failed to submit the prescribed documents by the stipulated date. Though admission of complainant was liable to be cancelled, but by treating it as a special case, complainant was allowed to continue the studies and appear in the examination of Term-I on the condition that result of examination will be disclosed subject to submission of prescribed documents and verification thereof. Complainant submitted the prescribed eligibility documents in February 2016 and thereafter, result of her Term-I examination was disclosed. That was made available on LPU e-connect account of the complainant. Copy of the result of Term-1 produced with written statement. Complainant was allowed to register herself for further studies at the university and appear in Term-II examination scheduled in June 2016. Copy of admission card of complainant even annexed with the written statement. Even complainant was disclosed vide letter dated 19.03.2016, sent in response to the legal notice about all the above referred facts. In response to the complainant’s request for issuing the mark sheet and bonafide certificate, she was intimated vide university email dated 10.06.2016 that she can collect the same from university campus on any working day during the official working hours, but in case she intends to receive the same by post, then  she was required to submit her postal address. It is claimed that in view of said intimation sent to complainant, complaint has become in fructuous. No wrong attributable to Ops qua delay in disclosure of result because same took place due to wrong doings by complainant herself and on account of failure to comply with the prescribed formalities within the stipulated period. Rather university took lenient view in dealing with the case of complainant by allowing her to continue her studies and even take exams of Term-I. This complaint alleged to be filed by the complainant with malafide intention for unnecessary harassing the Ops. Each and every other averment of complaint denied by praying for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                 Complainant to prove her case, tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C14 and thereafter, her counsel closed evidence.

4.                 On the other hand, counsel for OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RA of Dr. Manish Gupta, Associate Registrar of OP1 along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R4 and then closed evidence.

5.                 OP2 is exparte in this case.

6.                 Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments of counsel for parties heard and record carefully gone through.

7.                 Very first submission of counsel for OP1 is that the complainant is not a consumer of Ops because services availed regarding educational admission and appearance in exams. That submission of counsel for Op has no force because after going through ratio of case titled Ranchi University and another Vs Nuzmat Sultana and others 2009(1) CLT 125 (NC), it is made out that when educational institute charges fee for imparting education and conducting examination, then the same renders services for consideration and as such, the student will be a consumer as defined in the Act. Latest law on the subject is laid down in case decided on 08.12.2016 by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi through Revision Petition No.3288 of 2016 titled as Mody University of Sciences and Technology and another Vs Megha Gupta. As per this cited case, when the services of the university availed in respect of conduct of academic examination, then the university will not be a service provider with respect to that event. However, when services alleged to be deficient in respect of non providing of the detail marks or on account of non disclosure of the result in exams, then certainly consumer complaint is maintainable because as per UGC guidelines, it is duty of university to declare the result of the examination undertaken by the student unless there are cogent reasons for delaying the result. Even in the above referred reported case, it has been held that if any action by the educational institution is taken in contravention of the guidelines of UGC, then same amounts to an unfair trade practice. In the case before us as grievance of the complainant is that her result was not declared and the mark sheet not supplied to her despite issue of notice Ex. C9 through postal receipt Ex. C10 and Ex. C11 of date 03.02.2016 ad as such, certainly case of adoption of unfair trade practice is made out.

8.                 It is admitted in the written statement itself that request of the complainant for issue of mark sheet and bonafide certificate was allowed in respect of which intimation by university through email dated 10.06.2016 was sent for informing complainant that she can collect these certificates from the university campus at any working day or they may be sent through post at address of complainant. This result was with respect to the Ist year of M.A. examination conducted by OP1 qua Session of 2014-2015. Copy of detail mark card of this Ist year examination is produced  on record as Ex. R2. It bears print date as 11.04.2016. If the examination was conducted  for Ist year during 2014-2015, then why delay in printing of this detail mark sheet of Ex. R2 un till 11.04.2016 took place qua that no explanation offered virtually. Even if print of this Ex. R2 took place on 11.04.2016, despite that intimation of this declaration of result not submitted untill 10.06.2016 is a fact borne from page no.2 of written statement filed on behalf of OP1. Why this delay of two months again took place qua that the explanation offered is that complainant has not submitted document as per undertaking dated 24.07.2014

9.                 The said undertaking is produced on record as Ex. R1. Perusal of same reveals that the documents/certificate pertaining to BA-III year course, passed by complainant required to be submitted by 30.11.2014. It is contended by counsel for OP1that despite this undertaking, the said document was not submitted and that is why the delay occurred in disclosure of the result of complainant. Even attention to Ex. R4 in this respect drawn for claiming that further registration of the complainant for IInd year course undertaken on payment of fee of Rs.500/- by 31.03.2016. Though right for cancellation of admission of complainant was available to OP1 due to non submission of BA-III year detail mark sheet, but despite that cancellation of same has not taken place. Rather as per case of Ops themselves, complainant was allowed to undertake IInd year exams in 2016. That shows that virtually complainant complied with the formalities at the time of undertaking IInd year exams, but despite that the result of Ist year exam of M.A. was not disclosed.

10.               As per claim of complainant, she was not allowed admission in IInd year without assigning the reason, but subsequently complainant has been allowed to avail that admission and as such, virtually complaint in that respect has become in-fructuous. Even it is admitted during course of arguments by counsel for both parties that now the detail of marks of Ist year exam of MA has been disclosed to complainant and detail marks card is ready. Date on which BA-III year degree certificate submitted by the complainant (as required through Ex.R1) has not been disclosed by Ops in their written statement or through any evidence. Only on proof of compliance of the requirement of submission of BA-III year degree certificate by particular date, Ops could have frustrated claim of complainant. However, Ops have not produced any documentary or oral evidence to show as to when the copy of BA-III year degree was submitted to complainant. In the absence of this proof, it has to be held that detail marks card Ex. R2 was made available to complainant only after service of legal notice by her through counsel on 03.02.2016 as revealed by the contents of Ex. C9. Moreover counsel for OP1 appeared in response to issue of notice of this complaint on 16.05.2016, but despite that intimation regarding declaration of result submitted only through email on 10.06.2016 is a fact borne from contents of written statement of OP1. So from these facts and circumstances, it is made out that result was declared and detail marks card of Ist year of MA made available to complainant only after filing of this complaint or service of notice Ex. C9 through counsel. That reflects adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of OP1 virtually and as such, complainant stood mentally harassed due to adoption of unfair trade practice by Ops. So certainly complainant entitled for compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses, but from OP1 only because responsibility of disclosing the result or supplying the detail marks card was of OP1 and not of OP2. Rather perusal of para no.1 of the complaint and corresponding para of affidavit Ex. CA itself establishes that complainant paid the fees and got admission through OP2. So OP2 acted as an agent of OP1. Liability of supplying the detail marks card or disclosing the result was of OP1 as principal and not that of agent and as such, deficiency in service is on the part of OP1 as a principal and not on the part of OP2, an agent of OP1.

11.               Complainant availed services of OP1 through distant education course by mentioning her address of Ludhiana as revealed by contents of Ex. C3, a document like identity card and as such, in view of the fact that the result was to be put on the website of OP1 for circulation in entire Punjab, it is obvious that complainant being a student in distant education course was to get the result at Ludhiana. So in view of non putting the result on website, complainant suffered mentally and physically at Ludhiana and as such, cause of action accrued to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Complainant is a consumer of OP1 as discussed above and as such, in view of other reliefs becoming in-fructuous qua non declaration of result or not sending of detail marks card, complainant entitled to relief of compensation for mental harassment and of litigation expenses alone, from OP1.

12.               As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed against OP1 by directing it to pay compensation for mental harassment of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only). Complaint against OP2 however is dismissed. Payment of the above awarded amounts be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                                         (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                      (G.K. Dhir)

                                         Member                                              President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:06.03.2017.

Gobind Ram.