Per Hon’ble Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
Heard the Ld.counsel for the appellant/complainant. This consumer complaint is directed against the order dated 05/04/2013 passed in consumer complaint no.CC/12/380, Jeevan Patil v/s. Principal, College of Nursing and another; passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune. The complaint pertains to misrepresentation by the institution i.e. College of Nursing about the course i.e. B.Sc.(Nursing) to the complainant and it appears that the complainant has completed the course but he was not allowed to appear for final examination. Therefore, consumer complaint is filed.
Forum partly allowing the complaint passed the following order:-
“1. Complaint is partly allowed as against the Opponent No.1.
2. The prayer of the complainant as regards allowing him for appearing for final examination is rejected.
3. It is hereby declared that the Opponent No.1 has caused deficiency in service by giving false promise to the complainant as regards admission to the B.Sc. (Nursing).
4. The Opponent No.1 is directed to pay compensation of `25,000/- to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
5. Complaint is dismissed as against the Opponent No.2.”
However, not satisfied with the impugned order, complainant preferred this appeal.
At the first instance, we find that service provider, if any, is the College of Nursing, which admittedly is not a party before the forum and, obviously, in this appeal also as per impugned order. The Principal of the College is one of the employees of the college/institution and is a separate and distinct legal entity i.e. ‘person’ within the meaning of section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Deficiency in service on its part is to be assessed on the basis of his responsibilities and obligations fixed by the managing committee of the college/institution. Under the circumstances, whatever the complainant has got in his favour is, prima facie, improper and, therefore, there arise no question for granting any further compensation or additional relief. Thus, we find the appeal devoid of any substance and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal is not admitted and stands disposed of accordingly.
Pronounced on 2nd July, 2013.
