BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 399 of 2022.
Date of Institution : 10.06.2022
Date of Decision : 21.04.2023.
Deepak Yadav son of Shri Naval Singh, aged about 28 years, resident of village Gindokhera PO Boria Kamalpur, District Rewari, Haryana- 123401.
……Complainant.
Versus.
Office of Registrar, Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Barnala Road, Sirsa – 125055 Email id- ...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA……………..MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Baljit Kumar Sharma, Law Officer, Legal Cell on behalf of opposite party.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite party (hereinafter referred as OP) with the averments that complainant paid a total amount of Rs.2100/- to Registrar CDLU online while applying for PhD entrance exam. On 31.1.2022 the amount of Rs.450/- was paid by complainant for PhD entrance exam application under BC-B category on cdlu website. That on 31.1.2022, 1.2.2022 and 2.2.2022, the complainant made written submissions via email for change of category in online application form i.e. BC-B to General category and also contacted to University via landline number but they denied that it cannot be changed and fees once paid will not be refunded and asked the complainant to apply afresh. It is further averred that on 2.2.2022, the amount of Rs.1650/- was paid online for application under General Category to Registrar CDLU. That on 31.1.2022, 01.2.2022 and 2.2.2022 a written complaint was delivered to official email of op inspite of which the op did not refund his money. That due to the negligent acts of the op, the complainant has suffered loss and injury for which he is entitled to compensation. It is further averred that request for change of category and withdrawn of application for PhD entrance both were made prior to last date of application. That the op is liable for breach of contract as it has acted extremely negligently in attending to the complaint of complainant and is therefore liable to compensate the complainant for the loss caused to him. Hence, this complaint seeking compensation of Rs.5000/- and costs to the tune of Rs.2100/-.
2. On notice, op appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections especially regarding non maintainability of the present complaint before this Commission as educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in the matter of admission, fee etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency of service and such matter cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum/ Commission. It is further submitted that factually, the complainant has not detailed the true facts. The true facts are that complainant has applied for Ph.D course under BCB category. As per the University rules, a student who is applying/ submitting application for Ph.D Course required to pay Rs.1650/- (Rs.450/- in case of SC/DSC/BC/DAP) as application form fee. Accordingly, the applicant has not submitted any fee for studying in course and he has paid only the application form fee. When the complainant has applied, the application form has been utilized/ processed. Moreover, on the basis of this application of complainant, forms, roll. No./ admit card, attendance sheet etc. were generated for examination of complainant by the university. Thus there is no question of refund of the application form fee as it is the cost of the application form, which already processed. Further, as the application was processed for generating forms, roll. No./ admit card, attendance sheet etc., no question is arisen to change category of complainant or transfer the application form for other category. It is further submitted that all the process are pre-decided and auto-generated through online mode, for which the complainant is well aware. That as per UGC rules, only the fee paid for course/ study only is refundable, in case the student chooses to leave the course, whereas the application form fee is a cost of the application form and thus, it is not refundable. Moreover, the act of admission and examination is a statutory duty performed by University and thus, application form fee is not refundable and no deficiency or lapses are there, so the request of complainant of awarding compensation or cost is not maintainable. It is further submitted that complainant has applied twice for admission in Ph.D in Public Administration, Ch. Devi Lal University, Sirsa for the academic session 2021-22 with (1) User ID: 230135 under BCB category (Resident of Haryana) on dated 31.01.2022 and paid Rs.450/- as application fee vide Transaction ID 56617429 dated 31.01.2022. Thereafter, the complainant vide his email dated 31.01.2022, 01.02.2022 and 02.02.2022 as well as through telephonic conversation made request to change his category from BCB to General. The University has immediately intimated to the complainant that there is no provision to change the category of any candidate once he/ she selected while applying online and paid the category wise application fee. Further, it was also apprised to the complainant that if a candidate wants to withdraw his/ her application after its submission even before the last date, there is no such provision for the same. It is further submitted that thereafter on 02.02.2022, the complainant with user ID: 230248 under general category (Resident of Haryana) has applied again for the said course and paid Rs.1650/- as application form fee vide Transaction ID 56747199 dated 02.02.2022. The op University has considered his both requests by way of auto generated, pre-decided online process, the admit card, attendance sheet etc. However, the complainant did not appear in the entrance examination held on 20.02.2022 for the said program in any category. Therefore, according to the pre-decided, auto generated, uniform and online process, the op University has not only processed the application form of the complainant but also has responded the communication as per rules. Being application form fee/ cost of the application form, the fee deposited is neither transferable nor refundable as already described above. It is further submitted that op University has issued application form for admission in Ph.D. It is upon the complainant/ student to choose category i.e. General/ SC/DSC/BCA/BCB/DAP etc. under which he/she wanted to apply keeping in view his best benefit. It is prerogative of the student for deciding category under which he/she wanted to apply. The University has no rule or compulsion prescribed for the same except deciding category wise required application form fee. It is further submitted that in the present case, the complainant has decided to apply under BCB and General categories and accordingly under obligation to pay separate application form fee for each category. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement filed on behalf of op submitting therein that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7003 and 7004 of 2015 decided on 09.09.2015 has clearly laid down that educational institutions would come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the education is a service. The facts and circumstances of present case are different from the cases referred by the ops and the ratio of a judgment is not mechanically to be applied to other case without analyzing the context in which the observations were made by the Court in a given judgment. It is further submitted that present complaint is on the grounds that the request for withdrawal of application form was made immediately within 48 hours of application for entrance exam and about more than 15 days before the date of exam and even prior to the last date of application form for entrance exam. That pre-decided and auto-generated process is also controlled by University department through departmental username and password and once a student himself requests through his registered email id for withdrawn of application form made by him, then the op should have taken note of such request made by the student. But in the present case, the op failed to take note of the request made by the complainant vide emails dated 31.1.2022, 01/ 02.2.2022. The op was supposed to cancel the application of the complainant on his request and was not required to generate admit card, attendance sheets etc. for the exam and was also supposed to refund the entrance exam fees to the complainant but failed to do so. It is further submitted that University did not reply via email and they replied on phone call of the complainant that fees once paid will neither be adjusted nor refunded. The University did not reply to any of the emails of the complainant by email and the fact that a candidate can apply for two different categories is not mentioned in the PhD Ordinance for the 2021-22 issued by the University.
4. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents Ex. CW1/B to Ex. CW1/F.
5. The op in evidence has tendered affidavit of Dr. Rajesh Kumar Bansal, Registrar and copies of documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.
6. We have heard complainant and Law Officer on behalf of op and have perused the case file.
7. In this case, the main and foremost issue is that whether this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint, because the OP has raised objection that complainant is not a consumer and this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint. In this case, the complainant is seeking refund of the amount deposited with the op. Hence, it is to be seen whether complaint is maintainable against the education institution or not. The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the op which is University and an educational institution imparting education. The pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble NCDRC in cases P.T. Koshy & Anr. vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC); Anupama College of Engineering vs. Gulshan Kumar and Ors. Civil Appeal Nos. 17802 and 17803 of 2017 decided on 30.10.2017; Maharishi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur (2010) 11 SCC 159; Manu Solanki and others vs. Vinayaka Mission University I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC); Rajendra Kumar Gupta vs. Swarup Public School 2021 (1) CPJ (NC) 368 are relevant regarding issue whether the complaint against the educational institution can be entertained by the consumer commission or not. The perusal of above judgments clearly goes to show that it has been held in said judgments that education is not commodity and service imparting education institution cannot be held to be service provider and student cannot be said to be a consumer. Therefore, consumer commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter pertaining to the deficiency of service by educational institutions. In case titled as Anupama College of Engineering vs. Gulshan Kumar and ors. CA No. 17802 of 2017 decided on 30.10.2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“Learned counsel for the appellant has placed the decision of this Court in Maharishi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur (2010) 11 SCC 159. The aforesaid judgment was followed by this Court in SLP (C) No. 22532/2021 titled as P.T. Koshy & Anr. vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. The order reads as follows:
“In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharishi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur (2010) 11 SCC 159 wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”
8. Considering the ratio of law laid down in the above referred judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency in service and such matters cannot be decided by the Consumer Commission. The above said law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court will also prevail on the judgment cited by complainant in case titled as P. Sreenivasulu & anr. Vs. P.J. Alexa (2015) being latest law.
9. In view of above said reasons and well settled legal position regarding dispute involved in this complaint, the present complaint is dismissed but with no order as to costs. However, complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate court of law for redressal of his grievance, as per law, if so advised. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced : Member Member President,
Dated: 21.04.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
