DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.84 of 10-02-2011 Decided on 17-02-2011
Aman Goyal, aged about 25 years son of Sh.Jagdish Goyal son of Sh.Ram Rakha Goyal, resident of House No.30390, Street No.3, Paras Ram Nagar, Gurukul Road, Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, through its Registrar. The Controller of Examination, Maharishi Dayanand University, R-1 Block, Rohtak. B.B.R. Institute of Management & Technology, opposite Homeland Colony, Goniana Road, Bathinda, through its director, Ashis Singla.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.N.M.Aggarwal, counsel for the complainant.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is graduate in Computer Science Engineering and has done B-Tech from Punjab Technical University, Jallandhar in December, 2007. After doing his graduation, the complainant joined MBA (Master of Business Administration) two years course with B.B.R. Institute of Management & Technology i.e. opposite party No.3 which is affiliated with Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak i.e. opposite party No.1 as per the prospectus of Master of Business Administration, having been provided by the opposite party No.3 to the complainant. The complainant was told that it is two years degree programme comprising of four semesters but the students will have to complete this programme within maximum period of four years. According to the scheme of examination, there were six papers prescribed for the first semester, six papers for the second semester, four papers for the third semester and three papers for the fourth semester and one project report. The complainant paid the requisite fee to the opposite party No.3 who had sent the admission fee and prescribed Form of the complainant to the opposite party No.1 for enabling him to appear in the examination. He appeared in the first semester examination in July, 2009 and qualified in all the six papers and detailed marks card No.001872 dated 23.11.2009 was issued by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant. Thereafter, he appeared in the second semester examination in July, 2010 and qualified in second semester and detailed marks card No.005845 was issued by the opposite party No.1. Thereafter, the complainant had appeared in third semester examination and also qualified in third semester and detailed marks certificate No.008199 dated 20.11.2010 was issued by the opposite party No.1. Thereafter, the complainant appeared in fourth semester examination and gave all the required papers & passed the same but the opposite party Nos.1&2 with malafide intention marked him absent in three other papers which were not mentioned in the prospectus, issued by the opposite party No.1 and have also shown him to be absent in the practical papers mentioned at Sr.No.4 to 6 and thus has declared his result with re-appear in H-50, H-52 and H-53 as shown in detailed marks card having been issued on 22.12.2010. On the receipt of the said card, the complainant was stunned to see that he has been shown to re-appear in three papers, he has already appeared in the two required papers i.e. 2.41 DE and 2.47 DE and has passed the same day securing 46 marks and 45 marks respectively as is evident from the practical attendance sheet issued under the signature of examiner Dr.Anil Kumar having been appointed by the opposite party Nos.1&2. The complainant alleged that the opposite party Nos.1&2 have wrongly issued the detailed marks of 4th semester showing him to be absent in practicals, although he has appeared in both the practicals and had qualified the same. The complainant approached the opposite party No.3 and requested them to in this regard who wrote a letter to the opposite party No.2 in this regard and requested them to send the result of the complainant but to no effect. On account of the abovesaid deficiency in service and negligence in conducting the examination has not caused only monetary loss to the complainant but the precious period of 8-9 months have also been wasted and his career has been unnecessarily delayed. He has to pay examination fee again for re-appearing in the papers. Hence,the complainant has filed this complaint. 2. Preliminary hearing have been given to this compliant. Documents placed on file by the complainant has been minutely perused. 3. The main allegation of the complainant against the opposite parties is regarding the wrong declaration of result of 4th semester of MBA course and showing him absent in three papers which were not mentioned in the prospectus issued by the opposite party No.1 at the time of his taking admission and have shown him absent in practical papers mentioned at Sr. Nos 4 to 6 and has declared his result with re-appear in H-50, H-52 and H-53 as shown in detailed marks card issued on 22.12.2010. The complainant has filed the present complaint for the wrong act of the opposite parties. The declaration of results is the statutory function of the opposite parties, which cannot be interfered with by this Forum. Any statutory function performed by the opposite parties cannot be termed as 'service' provided as defined u/s 2(1)(d)(o) of the 'Act'. In this regard, the support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 2009 CTJ 1057 (SC)(CP) in case titled Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, wherein, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:- “The Board is a statutory authority – Its function is to conduct school examination – This is its statutory function – This function involves holding periodical examination, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates – These are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function – It cannot be divided as partly statutory and partly administrative – Examination fee paid for the examination is not a consideration for availment of any service but a charge paid for participating in the examination – Held, the Board is not a 'service provider' nor the student who takes the examination a 'consumer' – Consequently, the complaint against the Board will not be maintainable. Education – Consumer – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d) – Appeal – Section 23 – Complainant's son and another student allotted the same Roll No.496 by the appellant for the Bihar Secondary School Examination in 1998 – However, the Centre Superintendent added 'A' to his son's Roll No. making it 496A, which he duly communicated to the appellant's office at Patna – Result of the complainant's son not published – Hence, the boy suffered loss of one year as he had to reappear in the Board Examination the following year – Complainant prayed for compensation before the District Forum – In its reply the Board questioned the Forum's jurisdiction contending the complainant not to be a consumer – Complaint allowed directing the Board to pay compensation of Rs.12,000/- to the complainant with 12% interest – Board's appeal dismissed by the State Commission – Aggrieved, it moved the National Commission but without any success – Hence, the present appeal – Appeal allowed – Impugned orders of the Forums below set aside.” Further the support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in case titled Anamika Walia Vs. Registrar, HP University, 2011 CTJ 234 (CP)(SCDRC), wherein, it has been held that:- “Education – Deficiency in service – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) – Section 2(1)(o) – Complainant declared failed in the BA Part I result announced on 21.07.2005 – She claimed to have sent an application for revaluation alongwith a bank draft of Rs.100/- on 02.08.2005 – Received no reply despite repeated requests – Therefore, complaint filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service – Complainant actually applied for revaluation in her application received by the opposite party only on 21.03.2006 – Rejected as received after about eight months from the due date – Deficiency in service not proved – Complaint dismissed – Appeal – Judgment of the Supreme Court in Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prashad Sinha, 2009 CTJ 1057 (SC)(CP) referred to – Held, a University in conducting an examination discharges only its statutory function and the student taking its examination does not hire or avail of any service for consideration – Also held that the respondent as such was not a service provider and the appellant not a consumer – Appeal dismissed – Impugned order confirmed. Consumer – Education – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d) – A School Board or University in conducting an examination does not provide any service but discharges only its statutory function – Therefore, a student taking its examination is not a consumer as he has not availed of any service for consideration.” 4. From the above discussion, this Forum concludes that the education is not a service provided by the University rather it is statutory function of the University and the complainant is not consumer. From the abovesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Board is the statutory body performing the different statutory functions. The Board is not a service provider nor the student who takes the examination, is a 'consumer'. Hence, this complaint is dismissed in limini without any order as to cost. 5. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ' Pronounced in open Forum 17-02-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member (Amarjeet Paul) Member |
