West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/87/2014

Sri Sougata Sen. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Incharge, C.M.C. Limited, Midnapore Study Centre of Netaji Subhas Open University. - Opp.Party(s)

26 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.87/2014                                                         Date of disposal: 26/05/2015                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  XXXXXXXXXXXX.

  

 For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. A. Karmakar, Advocate.

 For the Defendant/O.P.S.                       : Mr.S. Ponda & Mr. A. Pal, Advocates.                                   

          

 Sri Sougata Sen, S/o Sri Susanta Kumar Sen, Buroshibtola, Ward No.14,  P.O.& P.S. Bishnupur,

 Dist. Bankura, PIN.722122 (West Bengal)…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1)The Incharge, C.M.C. Ltd., Medinipur Study Centre of Netaji Subhas Open University, at 7, Judges Court Road, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur, PIN. 721101, West Bengal.

2)The Controller of Examination, Netaji Subhas Open University, 134/1, Meghnad Saha Sarani, Kolkata-700029, West Bengal.

3)The Co-Ordinator/Mr. Surajit Ghosh, C.M.C. Ltd., Kolkata Region, at 24 Camac Street, Kolkata-700016, West Bengal.

4)The In-charge, Corporate Office of C.M.C. Ltd., P.T.I. Building, 5^th Floor, 4 Sansad Marg, New delhi-110001..……………Ops.

         The case of the complainant Sri Sougata Sen, in short, is that the complainant is a sincere student under the OP on payment of centre fees Rs.7,300/- having enrollment No.802033 with general rank 1274 for admission in the MCA course.  It is alleged by the complainant that he claimed final mark sheet and result but the same was not issued to him nor in the form of provisional certificate.  On that issue the complainant was severely harassed  and ultimately the OP did not refund the money.  As a result, the complainant suffered loss of study and mental disturbance.  Stating the case the complainant has come before us with the prayer for direction upon the OP to pay Rs.19,00000/- as compensation and refund of fees with litigation cost.  In this connection, certain documents are produced as per firisty.

            The Opposite parties contested the case by filing written objection challenging that there is

Contd………………….P/2

 

                                                                  - ( 2 ) -

 

no cause of action.  The allegation made in the petition of complaint are denied in to to.  This is submitted by the Ops that they have discharged their duties as per norms and rules as well as terms of conditions of agreement with Netaji Subhas University and C.M.C Ltd. The open university represents an alternative approach to the higher studies.  It stands institutionally a system of education that performs statutory duty of a State University with no commercial interest.  So, the statutory duties should not be designated to be “service” under the concept of Consumer Protection Act and thereby the case should not be maintainable before the forum.  A bunch of documents are produced in order to establish their ground.        

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1)Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?

2)Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?

3)Whether the case is barred by jurisdiction?

4)Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 4:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the Ops have collected fees but delayed for holding examination.  Even they have not published final result despite repeated request.  Rather, they harassed the complainant causing loss of study and mental agony.  So, this is a fit case for passing necessary direction in terms of the prayers made in the petition of complaint.

        Ld. Advocates representing respective Ops raised strong objection claiming that the grievance made in the petition should not be entertained by the Forum under Consumer Protection Act on the statutory reason that conducting academic examinations, publication of mark sheet and accepting fees thereof from the students are not within the definition of “Service”.  In that context, students are not also designated to be “Consumers”.  In order to fortify their argument, the basic principle relating to educational matters as discussed in the decision given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the reported case Bihar School Educational Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha (2009)8 Supreme Court cases 483 is referred to and very categorically pointed out so far as it bears the force of applicability in the present case.  Thus, according to the Ld. Advocates, the case is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Contd………………….P/3

 

                                                                  - ( 3 ) -

 

        We have carefully considered the case.  It explicitly appears that the complainant is a student and the Ops are of educational institution as Netaji Subhas University.  It is settled principle that the educational institutions are not providing any kind of service.  In view of judgement in the Moharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur reported in 2010(11) Supreme Court Cases 159 and Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)3 SCC 583, there is no scope for us under Consumer Protection Act to entertain the prayer of the complainant.  The arguments canvassed by the Ld. Advocates representing the Ops are same ratio applicable in the present issue of maintainability point.

        In view of the discussion made here in above it is held and decided that the education is not a commodity and as such the dispute thereon as raised by the complainant cannot be entertained by this Forum under Consumer Protection Act 1986. As a result the case should be dismissed.    

       

               Hence,

                           It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest  without cost.

Dictated & Corrected by me

              

         President                                                     Member                                         President

                                                                                                                                District Forum

                                                                                                                             Paschim Medinipur.