DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.359/2007

Sh. Biswambar Nayak

F-518, Kherpur,

Kotla Mubarakpur

New Delhi-110023                                                    ……Complainant

Versus

1.       Softdot Hi-Tech Educational & Training Centre

(A unit of De Unique Educational Society)

K-16, South Extension, Part-I,

New Delhi-110049

2.       Directorate of Distance Education

          Guru Jambheshwar University

          Hisar-125001, Haryana                                   …Opposite Parties

                                                          Date of Institution          : 02.03.07                                                           Date of Order         : 16.02.16

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

O R D E R

Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that he took admission in MBA course being offered by OP No.2 through OP No.1 having Study Centre at South Extension, Part-I New Delhi. He paid fee of Rs.6750/- through two cheques one for Rs.1750/- and other for Rs.5,000/-. When the examination time came in February, 2006 the OPs did not give him enrolment no./sheet and/or hall ticket/admit card despite his making oral and written requests thereby, he  failed to appear in MBA examination shattering his dream of fulfilling MBA degree.  The Complainant has enclosed copy of various letters sent to the OP No.2 on six occasions. Feeling aggrieved by the non-cooperation of OP No.1 & 2 he has filed this complaint before this forum claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the  losses vide his complaint dated 02.03.07.

OP No.1 has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 09.07.08 passed by our predecessors.

OP No.2 i.e. Directorate of Distance Education Guru Jambheshwar University, Hissar has contested the claim of the Complainant on various grounds viz. the complaint cannot lie against the University especially when the dispute involved in this case is regarding academic matter against the University. It is stated that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act cannot be invoked by the complainant as he is neither a consumer nor does the University render service of consideration etc. They further avowed that enrolment-cum- admit card was dispatched to the complainant to his study centre in December, 2005 and, therefore, there was no dereliction of duties on the part of OP No.2. OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.2.

Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Kuldeep Bansal, Director Education has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP No.2. Affidavit of Sh. Manoj Agarwal, Secretary of De Unique Education Society has also been filed on record on behalf of OP No. 1.

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.

We have heard the counsel for OP No.2 and have also gone through the file very carefully.

Admittedly, the student has paid fee for MBA exam with an university which does not offer its service to any candidate nor does a student who participates in examination conducted by university hires or avails of any service from the university i.e. OP No.2. Therefore, there is no relationship of consumer vs service provider between the complainant and OP2. This situation is well in the teeth of judgment of Apex Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, SCC 159 (2010) wherein it was inter-alia held that “the respondent student is neither a consumer nor is the appellant rendering any service”.

In view of the above discussion, we hold that the OPs are not service providers nor complainant student is a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the complaint. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on  16.02.16.

(NAINA BAKSHI)                                                             (N.K. GOEL)  MEMBER                                                                        PRESIDENT   

Case No. 359/07

16.2.2016

Present –   None

        Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed.    Let the file be consigned to record room.

(NAINA BAKSHI)                                                  (N.K. GOEL)    MEMBER                                                                PRESIDENT