C.C. No. 136 of 2016
Bijender Vs MDU Rohtak
Present: None for the complainant.
Sh. Anil Sharma, Advocate for OPs.
Case called several times since morning but complainant did not appear. It is now 3.30 p.m. This case is pending for the evidence of the complainant, but the complainant has failed to adduce evidence despite last opportunity. In this case complainant lastly appeared on 15.09.2016. Thereafter, the complainant never appeared in this case. It seems that he is not interested to pursue his complaint. This complaint has been filed by the complainant against Controller of Examination, MDU Rohtak and others.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bihar School Examination Board versus Suresh Prasad Sinha, IV (2009) C.P.J. 34(SC) held that the examination fee paid by student is not a consideration for availment of service, but charge paid for privilege of participation in examination. It has also been held that Education Boards & Universities are not ‘Service Provider’ and the complaints against them are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.
In P.T. Koshy&Anr. Versus Ellen Charitable Trust &Ors., 2012(3) C.P.C. 615 (S.C.)Hon’ble Apex Court after referring to judgment MaharshiDayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur2010(11) SCC 159 held that education is not commodity and Educational institutions are not providing any service. Therefore, in the matter of admission, fee etc, there cannot be a question of deficiency in service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In view of the legal position enunciated above, the complaint was not maintainable before the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed for non-compliance of the order and as well as on merits. File be consigned to the records.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh) (Rajesh Jindal)
Member Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
14.06.2017.