DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No.493 of 27-09-2012
Decided on 22-02-2013
Jasvir Singh s/o Gurdev Singh r/o # 27895 Main Road Near Guru Nanak Dev Public School, Lal Singh Basti, Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
The Director, Master Mind College of Education, Dabwali Road, Gehri Buttar, Distt. Bathinda.
.......Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.Sanjeev Kumar, counsel for complainant.
For Opposite party: Sh.Lalit Garg, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an ’Act’). The brief facts of the complaint are that in the year 2009, the opposite party had given the advertisement that they are doing the work of training for many courses and after reading the same the complainant met them and they assured him that their college is recognized by Institution R.S.E.R.T., SCO No.66-67 Sector 17-A Chandigarh. On the assurance of the opposite party, the complainant got the admission in ETT and had deposited Rs.1500/- as security and Rs.27,000/- as admission fee and they issued him Roll No.541 alongwith identity card. The said course was of four semesters and the abovesaid amount was of one semester but the opposite party has not got the examination of the complainant for the first semester and they delayed the matter on one or the other pretext. On enquiry it came to the knowledge of the complainant that the college of the opposite party is not recognized for E.T.T course and they are cheating him and the other students by alluring them that their college is recognized for E.T.T course. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite party to pay Rs.1 lac as compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice was sent to the opposite party. The opposite party after appearing before this Forum has filed its written statement and pleaded that the advertisement for giving the education to the students and work of training for many courses was from Federation of Self Financed Colleges of Education i.e. Federation of all the recognized (Private) Punjab College including the opposite party and it was rightly contended in the said advertisement that its Institute is recognized by S.C.E.R.T (wrongly written as R.S.E.R.T) for E.T.T course. The complainant was given admission in E.T.T course by the opposite party and he deposited Rs.1500/- as security and Rs.27,000/- as admission fee with them and they issued him Roll No.541 alongwith identity card. The opposite party further pleaded that an application moved by them with the Northern Regional Committee of National Council for Teacher Education for grant of recognition to E.T.T or equivalent course was accepted and granted the recognition of the E.T.T course to the opposite party vide order No.F.NRC/NCTE/F-7/8186-8197 dated 14.11.2006. The opposite party admitted that the course of E.T.T was of four semester, he had paid the fees for one semester only. For examination purposes the complainant was required to submit his examination form and examination fee as required under the rules but he has failed to submit the same. The complainant was informed telephonically twice requiring him to submit the examination form and deposit the examination fee, but he did not turn up and ultimately a notice dated 30.7.2011 was placed by the opposite party on the Notice Board requiring the complainant and three other students to submit the same upto 1st August, 2011 but despite that the complainant did not submit the examination form and deposit the examination fee. The security amount of Rs.1500/- is refundable to the complainant. The other students of the Institution of the opposite party submitted their examination forms and deposited the examination fee and sit in the exam and their result has been declared. The loss to the study of the complainant resulted due to his own fault and there was no malafide on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party has moved an application for the dismissal of complaint. The complainant has filed the reply to it.
3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
4. Arguments on the main complaint as well as application heard at length. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
5. Admitted facts of the parties are that in the year 2009, the opposite party had given the advertisement alongwith Federation of Self Financed Colleges of Education i.e. Federation of all the recognized (Private) Punjab College for imparting the education to the students and training for many courses. The complainant got the admission in E.T.T course and deposited Rs.1500/- as security and Rs.27,000/- as admission fee with the opposite party and it issued him Roll No.541 alongwith identity card. The E.T.T course was of four semester and the fees was paid by the complainant for one semester.
6. The disputed facts of the parties are that the complainant alleged that the college of the opposite party is not recognized for E.T.T course. Due to the mal-practice of the opposite party, one year of the complainant was spoiled and the opposite party has received the amount of Rs.1500/- as security and Rs.27,000/- as admission fee from the complainant for one semester and has also not taken the examination of E.T.T course for first semester.
7. On the other hand the submission of the opposite party on the legal side is that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the ’Act’ and to support its version the opposite party has relied upon the various authorities. The opposite party submitted that it moved an application with the Northern Regional Committee of National Council for Teacher Education for grant of recognition to E.T.T or equivalent course and the same was accepted and granted the recognition to E.T.T course vide order No.F.NRC/NCTE/F-7/8186-8197 dated 14.11.2006. The opposite party admitted that the course of E.T.T was of four semester. The complainant was required to submit his examination form and examination fee as required under the rules but he has failed to submit the same, he was informed telephonically twice to submit the examination form and deposit the examination fee, but he did not turn up. The notice dated 30.7.2011 was placed by the opposite party on the Notice Board requiring the complainant and three other students to submit the examination form and deposit the examination fee upto 1st August, 2011 but despite that he did not submit the same. Thus the complainant is himself at fault. The institution of the opposite party is duly recognized for the E.T.T course from National Council for Teacher Education. The security amount of Rs.1500/- only is refundable to the complainant. The other students of the Institution of the opposite party submitted their examination forms and deposited the examination fee and sit in the exam and their result has been declared.
8. The opposite party has moved an application on dated 16.11.2012 for the dismissal of the complaint on the pretext that the dispute involved in the present case is not a consumer dispute and the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the ’Act’ and the institution providing education is not providing service and they are not service provider as such this fora has no jurisdiction and has taken the support of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Chairman Desh Bhagat Dental College and Ors Vs. Archita Vedi in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.13472/2012, decided on dated 7.5.2012.
The complainant has duly filed the reply to the said application and rebutted the contents of the application.
9. The main contention of the complainant is that he has not been sent the date sheet and his examination was not taken up by the opposite party hence his one year of education is lost. The conducting of examination or the functions relating to the examination etc. are statutory function of the institution which are performed on the instructions of the body to which such institutions are affiliated to and recognized by that body in the present case is NCTE (Northern Regional Committee of National Council for Teacher Education).
10. Thus from the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file this Forum concludes that the complainant is not the consumer under the ’Act’ and the institution is not a ’Service Provide’ or the complainant is availing such service from the opposite party as defined under the ’Act’. The support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Chairman Desh Bhagat Dental College and Others Vs. Archita Vedi (Supra), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred the judgment titled Maharishi Dayanad University Vs. Surjeet Kaur reported in 2010 (11) SCC 159, In it the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held:-
“That education institutions cannot be dealt with by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the reason that institutions imparting education is not providing service and they are not service provider. The Consumer Fora do not have jurisdiction to deal with educational institutions.”
Further the support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, 2009 CTJ 1057 (SC)(CP) in case titled Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, wherein, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that :-
“The Board is a statutory authority – Its function is to conduct school examination – This is its statutory function – This function involves holding periodical examination, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates – These are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function – It cannot be divided as partly statutory and partly administrative – Examination fee paid for the examination is not a consideration for availment of any service but a charge paid for participating in the examination – Held, the Board is not a ’service provider’ nor the student who takes the examination a ’consumer’ – Consequently, the complaint against the Board will not be maintainable.
Education – Consumer – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d) – Appeal – Section 23 – Complainant’s son and another student allotted the same Roll No.496 by the appellant for the Bihar Secondary School Examination in 1998 – However, the Centre Superintendent added ’A’ to his son’s Roll No. making it 496A, which he duly communicated to the appellant’s office at Patna – Result of the complainant’s son not published – Hence, the boy suffered loss of one year as he had to reappear in the Board Examination the following year – Complainant prayed for compensation before the District Forum – In its reply the Board questioned the Forum’s jurisdiction contending the complainant not to be a consumer – Complaint allowed directing the Board to pay compensation of Rs.12,000/- to the complainant with 12% interest – Board’s appeal dismissed by the State Commission – Aggrieved, it moved the National Commission but without any success – Hence, the present appeal – Appeal allowed – Impugned orders of the Forums below set aside.”
11. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above the complainant is not maintainable in this fora hence the application of the opposite party is allowed and main complaint is dismissed and before parting with this order it is made clear that the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority/court of competent jurisdiction for the redressal of his grievances. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
22-02-2013
Vikramjit Kaur Soni
President
Amarjeet Paul
Member
