Delhi

StateCommission

A/248/2017

GURPREET SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIIT - Opp.Party(s)

SELF

30 May 2017

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 30.5.2 017

 Date of Decision :31.05.2017

First Appeal  No. 248/2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

GURPREET SINGH

S/o S.Daljit Singh

R/o H-2 Gurudwara

Majnu Ka Tilla

Delhi-110054.                                                                                     …Appellant                                                     

Versus

 

NIIT, A-1, Hamilton House

Opp. Palika Parking

Connaught Place

New Delhi-110001                                                                                           …….Respondent

 

CORAM

HON’BLE SH.O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

Present  : 

PER  :  HON’BLE SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

                Aggrieved by the decision of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum passed on 5^th April 2017 in Case No. 28/2014 dismissing the complaint being barred by limitation, complainant has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act praying for relief as under:-

            Set aside the impugned order dated 05.04.2017 passed by the  District Consumer Redressal Forum, Tis Hazari, Delhi and the respondent/opposite party may kindly be directed issue the certificate of cleared semesters to the complainant immediately.  Secondly to pay the received amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum till the date of its realization, and to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation/compensation to the appellant/complainant for lost of his precious time due to the wrong practice of the opposite party, in  the interest of justice.

ii)         Pass any other or further order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and against the respondent/defendant.

            Facts of the case are these.

            The appellant sought for and was allowed admission in the institute of the respondent at New Delhi.  The admission was done in the Gulabi Bagh Centre of the respondent,  The admission was done after fee of Rs. 1,10,00/- was paid.  ID was issued to the appellant.  Appellant/complainant started attending the institute and cleared two semesters.  Since no certificate was issued to the appellant/complainant,  a complaint was filed before the District Consumer Fora praying for direction to the respondent to issue the certificate.  In the meantime the respondents have also shifted their  centre from Gulabi Bagh to Malkaganj Road Jawahar Nagar, Gauri Hospital, Delhi .  It became very difficult for the complainant/appellant to pursue the course thereafter and to ask for the degree which the respondent had withheld despite qualifying two semester.

            We have heard the arguments and perused the records in detail.  In the first instance agreeing with the findings of the district fora that the complaint is time barred by limitation,we hold relying on the provisions contained under section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 that  the complaint is not entertainable and accordingly appeal deserves to be dismissed on this ground.  However this complaint is also liable to be dismissed on the ground that education is not a consumer as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) Supreme Court cases 159 holding that education is not a commodity, nor educational institutions re service providers, nor students are consumers. The issue has been extensively discussed by a judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court  in the case of Bihar School Examination Board vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha (2009) 8 SCC 483 holding as under:-

“The Board is a statutory authority established under the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952.  The function of the Board is to conduct school examinations. The statutory function involves holding periodical examinations, evaluating the answer scripts, declaring the results and issuing certificates.  The process of holding examinations, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function.  It is not possible to divide this function as partly statutory and party administrative.

            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  of 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-à-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.

            The object of the Act is to cover in its net, services offered or rendered for a consideration.  Any service rendered for a consideration is presumed to be a commercial activity in its broadest sense(including professional activity or quasi-commercial activity). But the Act does not intend to cover discharge of a statutory function of examining whether a candidate is fit to be declared as having successfully completed a course by passing the examination.  The fact that in the course of conduct of the examination, or evaluation of answer-scripts, or furnishing of mark-sheets or certificates, there may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Board into a service-provider for a consideration, nor convert the examinee into a consumer who can make a complaint under the Act.  We are clearly of the view that the Board is not a ‘service provider’ and a student who takes an examination is not a ‘consumer’ and consequently, complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board.” (Emphasis added)

            Having regard to the fact that appellant/complainant is not a consumer, no relief can be considered, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid two matters (Supra).

            In this view of the matter we dismiss the complaint both on merits and limitation, merit because the subject matter is outside the scope of the Consumer Protection Act and limitation because the complaint was not filed before the District Fora within the time prescribed under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

            We order accordingly.

            Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Rules 1987 read with Consume Protection Regulations 2005.

            Copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.

            File be consigned to records.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                  (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                            MEMBER(JUDICIAL)