Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/247/2015

Rajwinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab University - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj

21 Sep 2015

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/247/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	21/04/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	21/09/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Rajwinder Kaur wife of Simarjit Singh, resident of House No. 4253, Sector 46-D, Chandigarh.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1.   Punjab University, Sector 14, Chandigarh, through its Registrar.

 

2.   Post Office, Sector 14, Punjab University, Chandigarh, through its Post Master.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For OP No.1	:	Prof. Devinder Singh, Authorized Agent.
For OP No.2	:	Sh. G.C. Babbar, Advocate.

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

 

          Tersely, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint and emanating from the record are that, the Complainant, who did her M.A (Sociology) from U.S.O.L., Punjab University, Chandigarh, under Roll No.100272 (Admit Card Annexure C-1), approached Opposite Party No.1, for collecting her D.M.C., on 5.9.2014, but the same was not provided to her. Thereafter, on 28.10.2014, the husband of the Complainant sought information under the RTI Act, from Opposite Party No.1, regarding the status of the DMC (Annexure C-2). On getting no respite, the husband of the Complainant wrote to the First Appellate Authority, under RTI Act, on 26.11.2014, who vide order dated 22.12.2014, directed the Chairman, U.S.O.L. to take up the matter with the Postal Authorities (Annexure C-3 to C-5), as the name of the Complainant was appearing in the Challan at Sr. No.15. The husband of the Complainant, then, sought information from the Opposite Party No.2, regarding the details of the registered post, upon which it was informed, vide letter dated 03.03.2015, that the registered post no. RP 35221370IN has not been received in Sector 14 Post Office, as the same was deleted from the list (Annexure C-6 and C-7). Hence, 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.     Opposite Party No.1 in its reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, has pleaded that it has handed over the result cards of the students to the Post Office Sector 14, Chandigarh, after declaration of the result on 25/26.8.2014, for dispatching the same to the concerned students by way of registered post. The office copy of the acknowledgement, duly stamped by the Opposite Party No.2, carrying the particulars of the Complainant at Sr.No.15, is annexed as Annexure OP-1/1. It has been averred that all other candidates whose DMCs were dispatched along with the DMC of the Complainant, have received their DMCs. It has been asserted that answering Opposite Party is ready to issue a duplicate DMC to the Complainant on payment of the requisite fee by her so that her studies may not suffer. 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.     Opposite Party No.2 in its reply has pleaded that the mailing section of U.S.O.L., Chandigarh had given the list of registered articles, which were to be booked and sent. In list 1, the list was given of 22 articles, but in the said list, item no.15 was deleted, and number 22 was corrected to be 21. Thus, the postal department had received 21 articles for registration. Out of this list, the registered letter relating to the Complainant was in fact not handed over to the postal department rather it was deleted from the list. Similarly, another list 13 postal articles were shown in the list, but item no.8 out of the said list was also deleted and only 12 articles of this list were handed over. Thus, a total 33 articles were handed over to the answering Opposite Party for dispatch. 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.

 

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

 

6.     We have heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant, Authorized Agent of Opposite Party No.1 and learned Counsel for Opposite Party No.2 and have perused the record along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the parties.

 

7.     The issue raised by the complainant before this Forum pertains to the non-receipt of Detail Marks Card sent by Opposite Party No.1 through postal authorities (Opposite Party No.2). 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 markets 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.

 

8.     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.

 

9.     Since the Complainant did not hire the services of Opposite Party No.2 and she is not a consumer qua it, hence no case is also made out against Opposite Party No.2.

 

10.     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.    

 

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

Announced

21^st September, 2015                                

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER