Orissa

Rayagada

CC/15/8

Sri Sahebu Adangaka, S/o: Sri Narasingha Adangaka, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Director of Distance Education, Vinayaka Mission University, Salem and others - Opp.Party(s)

Self

03 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 08/ 2015.                                 Date.    31    .1. 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu, .                               Member.

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,                          Member

Sri Sahebu Adangaka, S/O: Sri Narasingha Adangaka, C/O: Ch. Krishna, New Colony, Po:Rayagada.    Dist.Rayagada,State:  Odisha.                                                …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Director of Distance Education, Vinayaka Mission  University, Salem Tamilnadu.

2. The Registrar,  Berhamapur University, Bhanja Bihar, Berhampur.

3.The Director, Indira Gandhi  National Open University, New Delhi.

.                                                                                                           .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.P No. 1  :- Set Exparte.

For the O.P. No.2:- Self.

For the O.P.No.3:-Sri J.K.Mishra and associates, Cuttack.

                                J u d g e m e n t.

        The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for not allow the complainant to join the course for his further  studies i.e. Master Degree in  Berhampur University.

 

On being noticed the O.P. No.1  neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  15 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around two years  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.P No.1  is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P. set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

On being noticed the O.P. No. 2  appeared and  filed written version refuting the allegation of the complainant  mentioned in the complaint petition. The O.Ps taking other grounds in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The O.P  No. 2 prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

The O.P. No.3  appeared through their learned counsel  and filed written version and  contended that  the averments made in the  petition are  all false, and O.P No.3  deny   each and every allegation made in the petition. The O.P No.3 taking other grounds in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986.. The O.P No.3  prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

The  parties     advanced arguments vehemently touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

         FINDINGS.

The O.Ps in their written version contended that the present complaint case is not maintainable in eye of law, since the matter  does not fall under any of the ingredients of Section  2(1)(d)(ii)  or Section  2(i)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986  so as to attract the jurisdiction and power  of  Forum U/S- 12 of the said Act.

A similar case of this nature was dealt with by the  Hon’ble High Court of Odisha   in W.P© No. 4202 of  2009  between Sri Utkal Ranjan Mohanty Vrs. Chairman, Distance Education Council, Indira Gandhi National Open University and   judgement  was  delivered  on Dt. 22.1.2014 a true copies  which  is filed  before the forum marked as Annexure-I  for perusal of the  forum, where  in the above  judgement  has gone  in favour of the  O.P No.3.

Prior  to delve in to the merit  of the case on outset  we have to  consider whether the complainant is a consumer under C.P. Act?  While answering  the issue  we would like to refer the citation.  It is held and reported  in CPR-2009(1) page No. 85  where in the Hon’ble State CDR  commissions, Mumbai  in para-7 where in observed  “Functions discharged by the university are not covered  as defined  U/S- 2(1)(d)   the provisions of Consumer Protection Act,1986. Again in para-9  observed “Performance  of statutory  duties by a University or College in laying down  criteria/rules/regulations of conducing criteria for permitting the student  to appear in the examination   and such other activities, can not  be considered to be hiring of service for fees.  Those are statutory functions  not depending upon the contract between the parties. The services which are to be rendered on the basis of the statutory  provisions  by the  University  can not be construed as rendering of service for consideration in the form of fees.

Accordingly answered the issue.   Basing on the above citation the present  case in hand  is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act.

The O.P. No.2  in  their written submitted that the complainant  has never applied in to the P.G. course under Distance   Education Centre of Berhampur University. As such the question  of refusal does not arise. The complainant has never applied  for issue of equivalent certificate with required fee of Rs.1,500/- after passing the B.A. Degree from the Director of Distance Education, Vinayak Mission University, Salem, Tamilnadu.  As such the  question of refusal for issue of equivalence certificate to the complainant does not arise.  As per Berhampur University Notification No. 6740/ACad-1 Dtd.  8.7.2014 and in exercise of power conferred   under section 6(15) of the Odisha Universities Act, 1989, this University has recognized the Degrees awarded by open and Distance learning  institutions recognized by U.G.C at par with Degrees  under DE Mode  awarded by this university basing on the letter F.No. UGC/DEB/2013 dtd. 14.10.2013 of  the U.G.C., New Delhi and the  recommendation of the Recognition committee held on 17.5.2014  and basing on the aforesaid Notification of this university   the P.G. and U.G. Degree courses (DE Mode) of Vinayak Mission University, Salem, Tamilnadu, India  have been recognized  basis w.e.f. 8.7.2014. Further the genuinity of the B.A. degree certificate issued  to the complainant by the Vinayak Mission University, Salem, Tamilnadu may also be verified for all purposes.  The  O.P. No.2 has discontinued the practice of issue of equivalence certificate to individual candidates relating to all degrees/courses of various universitities w.e.f. 1.12.2014. The claim of the complainant has no merit.

On perusal of the  complaint petition this  forum observed  that the matters relating   not allow the complainant to join the course for his further  studies i.e. Master Degree in  Berhampur University will not come under the purview of the C.P. Act, 1986.  Where there is a special remedy is available to the parties by the legislature  the forum did not inclined to invoke its jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter(Supra).  Hence  this forum has lack of jurisdiction to entertain the  above dispute  and adjudicate  the same under the provisions  of the C.P. Act, 1986.  The case is not maintainable in view of the above discussion.

 

The grievance of the complainant can be raised  before the appropriate court of law and not before this forum. We  do not  think  proper to go  into merit of this case.

Hence, the claim of the   complainant can not be accepted under the provisions of the C.P. Act. It is open to  complainant   ordinary remedy to approach proper forum.       

So  to meet the  ends of justice    the following order is passed.

 

ORDER.

            In  resultant  the complaint petition is  hereby  dismissed. The complainant  is free to approach the court of competent  having  its jurisdiction.   Parties are left to bear their own cost.  Accordingly the case  is closed.

            It is held and reported  in SCC 1995(3) page No. 583  the Hon’ble Supreme Court   in the case of Laxmi Engineering works Vrs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute where in observed   “The time spent before consumer forum shall be set-off  by  the  authority, where the proceedings are taken up, as per provision of Section-14 of Limitation Act.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this     31^st.       .   Day of   January,  2018.

 

                Member.                                             Member.                                                             President