Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant took admission in B.A. degree in OP No.1 Institute. It is alleged inter-alia that the complainant according to provision of OP No.1 allegedly was not able to secure 35 % in all subject although he has submitted all the assignment to OP No.1 to become eligible in attend joint entrance examination. It is stated that in the 2nd year the complainant also submitted the assignment. But the OP No.1 declared complainant failed. In the 3rd year the complainant completed all the assignment but the result was not declared by the OPs. It is alleged by the complainant that he has paid necessary fees for the admission and the examination conducted by the OPs. As the OP did not perform his duty, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. So, the complaint was filed.
4. The OP filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. It is also averred that as per the principle , they have taken action. Since, the complainant did not faulted the requirement and the action has been taken by the OP, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned
District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxx xxxx
Thus, under the circumstances we direct the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand)only as compensation for harassment to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order,failing which the OPs would be liable to pay 12 % (twelve percent) interest on the awarded amount from the date of receipt of this order till the date of actual payment.
The case is disposed off accordingly.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that impugned order is illegal and improper because the subject ‘education’ with reference to the examination can not come within domen of ‘service’ under the Consumer Protection Act. He submitted that on merit also the Op has no any fault. So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order
8. First of all we have to decide whether the complaint of this present nature will be entertained by the learned District Forum. Now the admitted facts are that the complainant is a student of IGNOU and he has taken admission in the BA degree It is also admitted that he has submitted all documents but the certificates was not available to him. It is admitted that it purely examination process and in this regard the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihar School Examination Board-vrs- Suresh Prasad Sinha can be relied upon. Also the Bihar School Examination Board–Vrs- Suresh Prasad Sinha reported in 2009 8 SCC 483 where their Lordship observed that for examination matters neither the Board nor University as service providers nor a student is a consumer for which the consumer complaint is not maintainable. Same view has also followed by the NCDRC of 2020 STPL 7872 on Manu Solanki and Others –Vrs- Vinayaka Mission University. In the instant case with regard to the aforesaid decision, we conclude that the OP/University is neither service provider nor the complainant is a consumer as it is related to the examination of the University. So, we do not agree with the finding of the learned District Forum and the impugned order is set-aside and it is set-aside.
The appeal stands allowed. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
