Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/473/2016

Abhishek Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab University - Opp.Party(s)

In person

02 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/473/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	30/06/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	2.1.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Abhishek Gupta s/o Sh. Chand Prakash Gupta r/o 5080, Sunny Enclave Desumajra Road, Kharar, Punjab 140301.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1.   Panjab University, Sector 14, Chandigarh, through its Deputy Registrar(Exams).

 

2.   Department of Laws, Panjab University, Sector 14, Chandigarh, through its Chairperson.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     PRESIDING MEMBER

                                SH. RAVINDER SINGH           MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.
For OPS	:	Prof. Devinder Singh, Authorized REPRESENTATIVE.

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

 

          Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the complainant who is student of LLM of the OPs deposited his dissertation project with prescribed fees of Rs.880/- on 30.7.2015.  The said dissertation was sent to the University on 3.8.2015 for evaluation alongwith original fee receipt. On 26^th October, 2015 the complainant came to department for enquiring about his result and status of his dissertation. Complainant was shocked to know that the dissertation was just lying without checking and he came to know that he has to deposit more fees i.e. Rs.1120/-. It is alleged that the OPs did not bother to inform the complainant about the enhancement of the fees and wasted three months  due to their own negligence.  The complainant deposited the additional fee of Rs.1120/- on 26.10.2015.  The department sent the photocopy of that receipt to the University intimating OP No.1 completion of the fees through the letter dated 4.12.2015.  Thereafter the complainant personally visited the thesis department to know whether anything else is needed by the University. The Officials of OP No.1 told the complainant that dissertation will now be sent for evaluation and nothing more is required and assured the complainant that the dissertation will be completed within 15 days.  But to the utter shock of the complainant on 20.1.2016 when he visited the OPs to enquire about his result he was told that the University OP No.1 is not accepting the photocopy of receipt and needs original receipt, which was protested by the complainant. The complainant then himself got his fees verified from the Accounts Department and only then his dissertation was sent for the evaluation. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.  

   

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

3.     OPs in their reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, has took preliminary objection that the complainant is not consumer under the definition of  Consumer Protection Act as the subject matter of complaint is education and evaluation work. It is pleaded that The Department of Laws forwarded the dissertation of the complainant to the Secrecy Branch on the very next working day i.e. 3.8.2015. Thereafter in a syndicate meeting which was held on 20.9.2015, the fee structure of LLM-1 year course for the session 2014-2015 was revised. Accordingly, the candidates including the complainant were duly informed telephonically within a week about the revision of fee.  The complainant deposited the remaining fee on 26.10.2015 but submitted the fee receipt in the department office on 26.10.2015 and the department forwarded his fee to the Secrecy branch on 4.12.2015. After evaluating his thesis, department received his awards from Secrecy department on 16.2.2016. Then after getting approved the Board Examiner for Viva from Dean of University  Instructions his Viva was held on 15.3.2016. The complainant result declared on 18.3.2016.  Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, answering Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

5.     We have heard the complainant in person, Authorized representative of Opposite Parties and have perused the record carefully.

6.     The core issue to be decided in the instant complaint is whether the complainant falls within the definition of consumer or not. The issue raised by the complainant relates to “education” which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora.  In fact, the complainant/student is not a consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010(11) SCC 159, and First Appeal No.1444 of 2013 titled as Atul Suyal Vs. Ryat-Bahra Group of Institutes, decided on 22.01.2014 by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, it was held that the Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in the matters of admission fee, detailed mark card, examination etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service and such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

7.     It is also important to note that the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.4335 of 2014 titled as Mayank Tiwari Vs. M/s FIIT JEE Limited, decided on 08.12.2014, while placing reliance on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., in Civil Appeal No.22532 of 2012, decided on 09.08.2012 and Revision Petition No.270 of 2006 titled as Brilliant Classes Vs. Shri Ashbel Sam, decided on 29.1.2010, has held that educational institutions are not service providers because education is not a commodity and educational institutions are not providing any kind of service.  We are of the opinion that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble National Commission, complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘Consumer’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

8.     Since the Complainant did not hire the services of Opposite OPs and he is not a consumer qua them, hence no case is also made out against Opposite Parties.

 

9.     For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to agitate the issue mentioned above before a Court of competent jurisdiction/appropriate Forum.    

 

10.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

2.1.2017                                              sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER