Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
The complaint case since been allowed by the Ld. District Forum, Paschim Medinipur, this Appeal is filed by the OPs of the complaint case.
Briefly narrated, case of the Complainant is that, owing to non-receipt of admit card, courtesy negligence of the OPs, he could not appear for the 6th semester examination. Hence, the complaint.
On the other hand, case of the OP No. 1 is that, owing to some technical issues of the Punjab Technical University, the registration process got seriously hampered. Though the OPs tried their level best to regularize the same, it went in vain.
OP No. 2 also submitted WV whereof it stated that all the transactions with Punjab Technical University are done on line and as such, though this OP took requisite fees from the students but, due to some technical issues of the said University and due to non-cooperation of PTU’s regional centre also, registration process got seriously hampered. This OP tried its level best to regularize the matter but in spite of best efforts, the matter could not be regularized. However, this OP, taking into consideration the interests of the students, took up the matter with the PTU and made necessary arrangement for the appearance of the Complainant in the 6th semester without charging any further fees. This OP denied any deficiency in service on its part.
Decision with reasons
Be it mentioned here that the Respondent initially appeared through his Ld. Advocate. However, subsequently he did not turn up. Therefore, only the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants was heard at the time of hearing.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellants firstly argued that ‘education’ being the subject matter of dispute, the complainant case is not maintainable here. However, we do not see eye to eye with such proposition of the Ld. Advocate. A seven Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors, reported in AIR 1978 SC 548 at page 583 (pr. 118) observed as under:
"In the case of the University or an educational institution, the nature of activity is, ex hypothesis, education which is a service to the community. Ergo, the University is an industry".
Further, the Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Bhupesh Khurana And Ors. vs Vishwa Buddha Parishad And Ors., reported in 2000 CTJ 801 (CP) held that “Imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of 'service' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institutions. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. The Complainants had hired the services of the Respondent for consideration so they are consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act”.
In fact, very recently, the Hon’ble National Commission in Krishan Mohan Goyal v. St. Mary’s Academy & Anr., reported in II (2017) CPJ 204 (NC), after deliberating upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (i) Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, reported in IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC); (ii) Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, reported in III (2010) CPJ 19 (SC); and (iii) P.T.Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., in SLP (Civil) No. 22532/2012, has been pleased to observe as under:
“None of the above referred three cases, in my view, would apply to a case where the school is found to be deficient even in providing the basic aid and assistance which any educational institution will provide to a student studying with it. Deficiency in imparting education which is the core function of an educational institution, in my view is altogether different from rendering such basic help and assistance to the students. A student may not be the consumer of the school as far as the core function of imparting education or taking examinations is concerned, but, the position would be altogether different where the deficiency on the part of the educational institution is found in an activity altogether different from imparting education, where a consideration is being charged for such an activity on the part of the educational institution. When a school admits students for the purpose of imparting education to them, it also undertakes to render a reasonably possible help and assistance to them, whenever required by the students who is in distress….. The educational institution cannot be permitted to wash-away its responsibility to provide such minimal aid and assistance on the pretext that it was not rendering any services to the students”.
The present dispute certainly does not surrounds over the core function of imparting education, but failure of the Appellants to arrange admit card for the subject examination. It was purely an administrative matter of the Appellants. Therefore, we find no infirmity over filing of the instant complaint before the Ld. District Forum.
As for the deficiency in service, it appears that taking due cognizance of the fact that the Appellants could not adduce any supporting document to establish the fact of technical problem, the Ld. District Forum tilted the scale in favour of the Respondent. In fact, on going through the entire case record, we have not come across any material proof wherefrom it can be seen that the Appellants left no stone unturned to secure admit card for the Respondent to enable him sit for the said exam.
In view of this, the impugned order cannot be faulted with.
The Appeal, thus, fails.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
The Appeal stands dismissed ex parte against the Respondent. The impugned order is hereby affirmed.
