Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/904

Nagesh Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

PTU - Opp.Party(s)

Harshit Jain

09 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No. 904 of 2012

 

                                                Date of Institution :  06.07.2012.

                             Date of Decision : 09.02.2015.

 

Nagesh Gupta son of Sita Ram, resident of House No.407, Ward No.4, Ram Nagar, Indra Basti, Sunam District Sangrur.

                                                     …..Appellant/complainant.

Versus

 

1.       Punjab Technical University Learning Centre, College Road Sunam     through its Principal/Managing Director.

2.       Punjab Technical University Jalandhar now at Near Science City,        Kapurthala through its Registrar.

                                                     ….Respondents/opposite parties

    

Appeal against order dated 03.05.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

 

Quorum:-

 

     Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

             Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.   

Present:-

 

     For the appellant             :     Sh. Harshit Jain, Advocate.

For the respondent No.1  :     Sh. Arun Chandra, Advocate.

For the respondent No.2 :     Sh. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate

   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                                 

                    The appellant (complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against order dated 03.05.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short, “the District Forum”), vide which, the complaint of the appellant was partly accepted by the District Forum, Sangrur and dissatisfied with the same, the instant appeal has been preferred by him

2.           The complainant has instituted the complaint against the OPs on the averments that he took admission at Study Centre of OPs at Sunam for the course of B.Sc. I.T. in the year 2004 by depositing the requisite fees therefor. That complainant also deposited the examination fees punctiliously with OP No.1 and he was registered with OP No.2, vide registration No.417602460. The complainant appeared in all the exams of the course of B.Sc. IT and completed it successfully by passing it in the year of 2006. The complainant is consumer of the OPs since he availed of their services for passing B.Sc. IT course. The complainant took admission at learning Centre of OP No.1 at Sunam for MBA course by paying requisite fees and completed it successfully. The mark sheet of B.Sc. IT and MBA were supplied to the complainant besides issuance of degree of MBA by OP No.1, but they have not issued the degree of B.Sc. IT course to the complainant. The complainant wanted to do M.Sc. II after completing his MBA course and took provisional admission in Sikkim Manipal University in the year 2010 by depositing the requisite fees for 4th semester. The complainant was given only provisional admission because degree of B.Sc. IT was not supplied to him by OP No.1. The admission of the complainant at Sikkim Manipal University was provisional subject to furnishing the degree of B.Sc. IT to them by him.  The complainant approached OP No.1 for supply of degree of B.Sc. IT to him and was duly assured that it would be supplied soon. The OP no.1 even assured the brother of the complainant to forward the degree to the university concerned. The complainant and his brother visited the office of OP No.1 and requested for issuance of degree certificate, but they put him off on one pretext or the other. The complainant appeared in the M.Sc. TT exam and cleared the same. However, due to non issuance of degree certificate of B.Sc. IT, the Sikkim Manipal University rejected the admission of the complainant, vide letter dated 08.06.2011 due to non-furnishing of degree of B.Sc. IT.  The fee of Rs.36,000/- was deposited at Sikkim Manipal University by the complainant for M.Sc. TT course and the same stood forfeited due to non-supply of degree certificate of B.Sc. IT, resulting into cancellation of his admission thereat. The complainant sent legal notice dated 20.06.2011 through registered cover to the OPs, but to no effect. That OPs are deficient in service to the complainant, resulting into loss of fee of Rs.36,000/- deposited by the complainant at Sikkim Manipal University. The complainant has accordingly filed this consumer complaint directing the OPs to issue degree certificate of B.Sc. IT to complainant and to pay the amount of Rs.36,000/-, which complainant deposited with Sikkim Manipal University due to non-supply of degree certificate by the OPs, besides claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for one year loss of career and Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.20,000/- for litigation expenses.
3.           Notice of this complaint was served by the District Forum on the OPs. OP No.1 filed its written reply to the consumer complaint admitting this fact that complainant took admission at the Study Centre of OP No.1. It was denied that registration No. of the complainant was 417602460, in fact, the University and OP No.1 recorded the registration-cum-roll number of complainant as DEP4024670. It was admitted that complainant passed the course of B.Sc. IT in the year of 2006. It was admitted by that mark sheets of B.Sc. IT were supplied to the complainant by OP No.1 alongwith degree of MBA. It was denied that OP No.1 has not issued the degree of B.Sc. IT course to the complainant. The OP No.1 has been partly running a learning centre at Sunam and degrees are issued by the Punjab Technical University (PTU) Jalandhar only and hence there is no fault of OP No.1. As per University rules, one has to apply for degree with detail marks card for matric standard and University sends the degree through RLFC. It was further averred that reason for delay in providing the degree must be some other i.e. job of complainant at a distance place and his hectic schedule which incapacitated the complainant to supply the required DMC to the OPs. It was also admitted that complainant applied for degree documents on 17.05.2011 for the first time and his case was sent through messenger to RLFC. The degree was received by OP on 13.10.2011 and hence there is no fault for non-supply of degree for the above intervening period of OP No.1. The complainant was informed through letter vide receipt dated 19.10.2011 to collect the degree. OP No.1 denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.           OP No.2 Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar through its Registrar filed its separate written reply raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable against OP No.2, which has been discharging its statutory functions. On merits, it was admitted that complainant took admission and was registered with OP No.2, vide registration No.4176024670. It was also admitted by OP No.2 that complainant passed the B.Sc. course in September 2006. It was vehemently denied that complainant is consumer of OP No.2. It was further pleaded that there is a procedure for obtaining the degree after completion of course and a candidate has to send his request to the Controller of Examination, PTU alongwith no objection certificate from the learning Centre alongwith other documents for supplying the degree to him alongwith demand draft of Rs.200/- in favour of Registrar of PTU, Jalandhar. The complainant has failed to follow the above procedure and hence, the degree of B.Sc. could not be sent to him, which has now been sent to the Regional Centre. OP No.2 denied any deficiency in service on its part by denying the status of the complainant as consumer of OP No.2 and, thus, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.           The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-19 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to C-13 and closed the evidence. As against it, the OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Parveen Aren, M.D./Principal Ex.R-1 along with documents Ex.R-2 to R-7 and closed the evidence. OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of H.S. Bains, Registrar Ex.R-11 along with documents Ex. R-8 to R-10 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Sangrur partly accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay the amount of Rs.5,000/- to complainant as compensation and litigation expenses. Dissatisfied with impugned order of the District Forum, the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. It is an undisputed fact of this case that complainant took admission at Study Centre of OP No.1 at Sunam for the course of B.Sc. IT in the year 2004 and successfully passed the test thereof in the year 2006. It is also an undisputed fact that complainant took admission at learning Centre of OP No.1 for the course of MBA and completed it successfully. There is no denial of this fact that OP No.1 issued the degree of MBA to the complainant, but the complainant has not received the degree of B.Sc. IT during the course of proceedings before District Forum Sangrur. OP No.1 produced the degree and handed it over to the counsel for the complainant on 10.01.2012 at the instance of complaint during the pendency of the proceedings before District Forum. The complainant has since received the degree of B.Sc. IT during the pendency of the proceeding of this case in the  District Forum.
7.           The point for adjudication in this appeal is whether complainant suffered any loss of one year academic career due to negligence of OPs in not supplying the degree to him. This is also point falling for adjudication, as to whether the complainant is consumer of OPs or not. We have examined the detail mark certificates Ex.C-1 to C-4 B.Sc. IT of the complainant, Ex.C-5 and C-8 are the receipts regarding deposit amount of Rs.8500/-, Rs.9000/-, Rs.8500/- and Rs.8000/- by the complainant with OP No.1, Ex.C-9 is the re-registration application on the record dated 08.06.2011, Ex.C-10 is rejection of re-sitting form- for July 2011 Exam. Ex.C-11 is the notice served upon OPs by the complainant and Ex.C-12 to C-13 are the copies of receipts, Ex.C-15 is the intimation sent to complainant that the degree has been collected by OP No.1 from RLFC on 18.05.2011 and he could collect it therefrom, Ex.C-17 is the copy of degree of Bachelor of Science of the complainant, Ex.C-18 is pay slip for the month of December 2011. In addition to the above documents, the complainant also tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-19 in support of his averments in this case.
8.           To counter the above evidence, the OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Parveen Aren, Principal of PTU learning Centre Sunam, Ex.R-1, application addressed to Regional Manager DEP for requirement of degree of Naresh Gupta Ex.R-2, Ex.R-3 is the no objection certificate issued by OP No.1, Ex.R-4 is the copy of despatch register, Ex.R-5 is the copy of receipt register, Ex.R-6 is the copy of degree of bachelor of sciences, Ex.R-7 is the receipt, Ex.R-8 is the requirements for issuance of documents from the University, Ex.R-9 is the application for degree absentia/provisional certificate, Ex.R-10 is the copy of degree of bachelor of sciences and affidavit of H.S. Bains, Registrar of PTU also placed on record as Ex.R-11 in this regard.
9.           From examination of above referred evidence on the file, we proceed to adjudicate this controversy in this case. The requisite degree has been supplied to the complainant during the pendency of proceedings before the District Forum and there is no dispute about this fact. Forceful submission of the OPs in this appeal is that since they are educational institutions and are discharging statutory functions and hence the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs. The OPs also relied upon law laid down by Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3911 of 2003 titled as "Bihar School Examination Board   Versus  Suresh Prasad Sinha", wherein the Apex Court has held that the School Examination Board is not rendering any service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act,1986. This view has further been reiterated by the Apex Court in case "P.T. Koshy & Anr.   Versus  Allen Charitable Trust & Ors.", 2012 (3) CPC-615. On the basis of law laid down by the Apex Court, OP No.2 is the Punjab Technical University, a statutory body, it has been discharging its statutory functions. OP No.1 is affiliated to the PTU being Regional learning Centre thereof. Consequently, we find that since OPs are not rendering any service, as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, therefore, the complainant is not their consumer.  In educational matters, the Universities discharge their statutory functions. The remedy to the complainant lies before the Civil Court or any other appropriate forum in this regard. Once we have come to this conclusion that the complainant is not proved to be the consumer of the OPs, as OPs have not rendered any service for consideration to the complainant,  therefore, the District Forum erroneously accepted the complaint of the complainant partly by directing the OPs to pay the compensation of Rs.5,000/- to complainant. The Consumer Fora is competent to entertain the matter provided there is relationship of consumer and service providers between the parties. This important aspect has not been considered by the District Forum in the order under appeal in this case.
10.           In the light of our above discussions, we hereby dismiss the appeal of the appellant by dismissing the complaint of the complainant in its entirety.
11.           Arguments in this appeal were heard on 02.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.     The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                                   (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

February  9, 2015.                                                                          

(MM)