Haryana

Jind

CC/15/16

Pooja Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Registar KUK - Opp.Party(s)

Sh A.S. Saini

23 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 26 of 2015
   Date of Institution: 25.2.2015
   Date of final order: 23.6.2016

Pooja Jain d/o Sh. Surinder Singh r/o  No.22/17 Hanuman Gali, Dedhraj Mohalla, Jind, Tehsil and District Jind..
                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
Registrar, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.
Vice Chancellor, K.U.K.
Director/co-ordinator/Incharge, Indus Institute of Engineering Technology, Kinana, District Jind.
                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
    Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. A.S. Saini Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Manjit Singh Adv. for opposite parties No.1&2.    
          Opposite party No.3 already ex-parte. 
         
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant appeared in Digital Electronics (E.C. i.e. Electronics Communication) of B. Tech 4th Semester Examination held in June, 2013 under roll No.5609163 being conducted by opposite party No.3 under the direction, control and affiliation of opposite parties No.1 and 2. After  appearing and facing such examination  she was under the positive impression that she would not only qualify the said exam rather would 
            Pooja Jain Vs. Registrar KUK etc.
                    …2…
show praise worthy performance in the above said paper but  on declaration of the  said exam she was highly shocked to find only 21 marks in her examination. The complainant had expected much more marks in that examination. The complainant resolved to get the paper re-evluated after going to the conclusion that her answer sheet was not properly and carefully checked by the concerned authority. Had the answer sheet been fairly and properly checked, she would have been shown to have good marks in view of her attemption and performance in the paper. The answer sheet of the complainant was got re-evaluated and the certified copy of the same was supplied to her in which she shown to have secured 29 marks as a result of re-evaluation made by opposite party No.2 and 3. The opposite parties have not made fair and proper evaluation of the answers specially with regard to question No.5(A+B),Q.2(B),Q.4(A+B),5 Q.7 (A+B) Q.8 (A+B) in which she found that there was photo copy of chit at various places where the answers were attempted and marks were given by the examiner. The complainant submitted an application with the opposite parties for giving information under RTI, the complainant was informed of securing 21 marks instead of 29 marks(Re-evaluated). In fact, the answer sheet of the complainant has not been properly, fairly and carefully checked by the opposite parties.  Due to this, the complainant has been deprived of her valuable and golden chance of seeking admission in better stream during sessions 2013-14 and 2014-15 which is an irreparable loss to the complainant. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that 
            Pooja Jain Vs. Registrar KUK etc.
                    …3…
the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to  issue the D.M.C. in favour of complainant showing her to be qualified in the above said examination after getting the same checked in fair, honest and proper manner as well as to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant.  
2.    Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have appeared and filed the written statement stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint  and the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum. On merits, it is contended that answer sheet of the complainant was correctly given numbers for the particular subject of Digital Electronics of complainant as per performance. The opposite parties adopted fair process in checking answer sheets and in giving marks without any partiality. After receipt of evaluation form the answer sheet of complainant was re-evaluated but it is quite incorrect that any wrong evaluation was done on the part of the answering opposite parties. The marks were given by the examiner in re-evaluation as per her performance. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite parties. Dismissal of complaint with cost is prayed for. 
3.    The opposite party No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 6.11.2015.  
4.    In evidence, the complainant has produced her own affidavit Annexure C-1, copy of marks sheet Annexure C-2,  copy of challan Annexure C-3, copy of letter dated 29.1.2014 Annexure C-4, Admit 
            Pooja Jain Vs. Registrar KUK etc.
                    …4…
card Annexure C-5, copy of letter dated 10.2.2014 Annexure C-6 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have produced the affidavit of Sh. Uma, assistant Registrar Ex. OP-1, copy of answer sheet Ex. OP-2, copies of re-evaluation Award Ex. OP-3 and Ex. OP-4, copy of application of re-evaluation Ex. OP-5, copy of letter Ex. OP-6 and copy of letter dated 26.5.2014 Ex. OP-7 and closed the evidence.   
5.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. Before proceeding further, the foremost question arises for consideration before the Forum is “Whether the educational institutions are providing any service to the students?”
                  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held  In case titled  P.T. Koshy & Anr. Versus Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. reported in 2012(3) CPC Pg. 615 (SC), Hon’ble Apex court after referring to judgment Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 has held that education is not commodity and Educational institutions are not providing any service. Therefore, in the matter of admission, fee etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency in service. Such matters cannot be entertained  by the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 
Further in case titled as Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Parshad Sinha, reported in CPJ 2009(IV) Pg.34 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme court has  held that the examination fee paid by student is not a consideration for availment of service, but charge paid for privilege of participation in examination.  It has also been held that education Boards and universities are not ‘Service provider’ and 

            Pooja Jain Vs. Registrar KUK etc.
                    …5…
the complaints against them are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. 
                   Further, in another case titled as ICL Institute of Management and Technology Vs. Ranjit Singh & Anr. First Appeal No.166 of 2014 decided on 12.05.2014, Manav Rachna International University Vs. Nikhil Dhhan, First Appeal No.1227 of 2014 decided on 13.3.2015 by  our Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula has held that the complaint for refund of fees was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act before the Fora.

  Ld. counsel for opposite parties has  also relied upon the case titled Bangalore University Vs. Dattatris I(2010) CPJ 111 (NC) & case titled Kota Open University Vs. Raj Kumari Yadav I(2010) CPJ 152 (NC). 
  6.    Besides this the grievance of the complainant is that she had applied for 
re-evaluation for the subject  of digital electronics B-tech 4th semester and deposited the requisite fee with the University but the opposite party No.1 and 2 intentionally and deliberately not checked the above said paper. On the other hand,  the opposite parties have placed the copy of answer sheet Ex. OP-2 and mark sheet Ex. OP-3 and Ex. OP-4. After perusal of the same it reveals that the examiner of the  OP-University has again checked the answer sheet of the complainant and gave 29 marks which is also intimated to the complainant by the University vide letter Ex. OP-6 and they have clearly mentioned that your answer sheet has been duly re-evaluated. So we are  of considered view there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  

            Pooja Jain Vs. Registrar KUK etc.
                    …6…
               In view of the legal position discussed above on the point of maintainability of the complaint as well as merit of the case we have  found  no any merit of the case, hence the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File  be consigned to record room after due compliance.
 Announced on: 23.6.2016

                                President,
 Member                 Member               District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                 Pooja Jain Vs. Registrar KUK etc.
                    
                         
Present:  Sh. A.S. Saini Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Manjit Singh Adv. for opposite parties No.1&2.    
          Opposite party No.3 already ex-parte. 
         

              Arguments heard. To come up on 23.6.2016 for orders. 
                                    President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  17.6.2016

Present:  Sh. A.S. Saini Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Manjit Singh Adv. for opposite parties No.1&2.    
          Opposite party No.3 already ex-parte. 

         Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                          President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  23.6.2016