STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                   UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                      APPEAL NO. 780 OF 2014

        (Against the judgment/order dated 10-03-2014 in Complaint Case

                 No. 33/2013 of the District Consumer Forum-II, Bareilly )

Mohd. Arif

                                                                     ...Appellant/Complainant

                                                     Vs.

M. J. P. Ruhelkhand University

and another 

        ...Respondents/Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE MR. J N SINHA, MEMBER

HON’BLE MR. R C CHAUDHARY, MEMBER

For the Appellant        :  Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, Advocate.

For the Respondent     :  Sri Rajesh Chadha, Advocate.

Dated : 20-05-2016

                                                  JUDGMENT

       MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT (ORAL)                                                         

        Present appeal has been filed by the complainant Chandra Prakash under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as Act) against the judgment & order at 10/3/2014 passed by District Consumer Forum-II, Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 33/2013 Mohd. Arif V/s M. J. P. Ruhelkhand University and another whereby learned District Consumer Forum has dismissed the complaint holding that complaint is not maintainable under the Act.

        We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Counsel for the respondent no.01 M. J. P. Ruhelkhand University.

        Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the complaint discloses that appellant is a consumer under Section 2(d) of the Act and complaint filed by him is maintainable under Section-12 of the Act. The findings recorded by the District Consumer Forum to the fact that the complaint is not maintainable is against law.

        Learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C., New Delhi rendered in the case of Registrar of Manipal University and another V/s Dr. Sushith reported in I (2013) CPJ

:2:

 260 (NC).

Learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 contended that the appellant/complainant is not a consumer defined in Section 2(d) of the Act.

        He further contended that respondent no.1 is a statutory body and he does not render service defined in Section 2(o) of the Act. The complaint filed by the appellant is not maintainable under the Act. The impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum is in accordance with law and the appeal has no force.

Learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Bihar School Examination Board V/s Suresh Prasad Sinha reported in IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC).

        We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. Perusal of the complaint shows that version of the complainant is that he appeared in the examination of M.Sc. final conducted by respondent no.01 M. J. P. Ruhelkhand University, Bareilly in the year 2010 and passed examination in 2nd Division. Thereafter he applied for improvement examination after depositing requisite fee of Rs.560/- and appeared in improvement examination on 18/5/2011 at centre Bareilly College, Bareilly but the opposite parties namely M. J. P. Ruhelkhand University, Bareilly and Bareilly College, Bareilly did neither declared result of appellant/complainant; nor issued his mark-sheet of M.Sc. final showing the complainant absent from improvement examination. Thus, the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. On the basis of above averments appellant/complainant has presented the complaint under Section-12 of the Act before the District Consumer Forum and has prayed to direct the opposite parties to issue mark-sheet of M.Sc. final and to refund Rs.40,000/- the amount deposited by him. He has further claimed compensation of Rs.18,00,000/-.

        In the case of Bihar School Examination Board V/s Suresh Prasad Sinha (Supra) the complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Consumer Forum with allegation that he appeared in the Bihar

:3:

Secondary School Examination in 1998 but his result was not published inspite of several letters written by him. Therefore, he had to re-appear in board examination. In such circumstances he moved complaint for compensation before District Consumer Forum.

        With reference to above facts, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bihar School Examination Board V/s Suresh Prasad Sinha (Supra) has held as under :-

        “When the examination Board conducts an examination in discharge of its statutory function, it does not offer its’ services’ to any candidate. Nor does a student who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, hires or avails of any service from the Board for a consideration. On the other hand, a candidate who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, is a person who has undergone a course of study and who requests the Board to test him as to whether he has imbibed sufficient knowledge to be fit to be declared as having successfully completed the said course of education; and if so, determine his position or rank or competence vis-a-vis other examinees. The process is not therefore availment of a service by a student, but participation in a general examination conducted by the Board to ascertain whether he is eligible and fit to be considered as having successfully completed the secondary education course. The examination fee paid by the student is not the consideration for availment of any service, but the charge paid for the privilege of participation in the examination.”

        In the case of Registrar of Manipal University and another V/s Dr. Sushith (Supra), the contention of the complainant was that he got admission to Post Graduate Degree Course in MD in Biochemistry in the academic year 2005-06 and passed the said course in the year 2008 but inspite of repeated requests and demand, the opposite party did not issue the certificate and withheld the same without any substantial reason or cause.

        In view of above facts, the District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and the appeal filed before the State Commission was also dismissed. Thereafter revision was filed by the opposite party before the

:4:

Hon’ble National Commission. The Hon’ble National Commission also dismissed the revision and held that no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to call for interference.

        The facts of the present case are similar to the facts of the above  case of Bihar School Examination Board V/s Suresh Prasad Sinha. The respondent no.01 University has conducted examination in discharge of its statutory function and the act done by him does not come within purview of service defined in the Act. In view of proposition laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bihar School Examination Board V/s Suresh Prasad Sinha, We are of the view that the District Consumer Forum has rightly held that the complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable under the Act. No interference is justified in impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum. Appellant is at liberty to approach appropriate Forum.

        In view of above, we are of the view that the appeal has no merit and is dismissed accordingly with liberty to appellant to approach appropriate Forum according to law.

        Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.

                                                                                         ( JUSTICE A H KHAN )

                                                                                                          PRESIDENT

                                                                                                           ( J N SINHA )

                        MEMBER  

                  ( R C CHAUDHARY )

                                                                                                               MEMBER

pnt