Learned counsel for petitioner and counsel for respondent-University were heard on admission. Succinctly put factual backgrounds are that petitioner for taking admission to P.G. Diploma in Pharmaceutical Marketing for Sessions 2001-02, made deposit of Rs.10,000/- with respondent University after purchasing prospectus of Rs.500/-. Classes, however, could not commence pursuant to which, out of deposit made by petitioner, the University refunded Rs.10,449/-. Aggrieved complainant brought consumer complaint and District Forum directed respondent University to pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation cost of Rs.5,00/-. -2- After an appeal was preferred before State Commission, State Commission having taken notice of decision of Hon’ble Apex court in the matter of Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, Civil Appeal No.3911 of 2003, held that respondent was not a Service Provider and accordingly reversed finding of District Forum and dismissed complaint. The Hon’ble Apex Court have held that in the matter of imparting education the University are not service provider and hence there being not a consumer dispute, consumer fora would not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue. In view of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, we find no infirmity with the order of State Commission warranting interference. Revision petition in the circumstances is dismissed, with no order as to cost.
......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER
......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER | |
