BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 17/07/2014
Date of Order : 22/09/2014
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. V.K. Beenakumari, Member.
C.C. No. 536/2014
Between
Aasim Ihsan.A., | :: | Complainant |
S/o. Abdul Khadir, Angeveetil, Poonjassery, Poonjassery. P.O., Perumbavoor – 683 547. | (By Adv. T.M. Abdul Latiff, “Sadakath”, Ponoth Road, Kaloor, Cochin – 682 017.) |
And
1. The Mahatma Gandhi University, | :: | Opposite Parties |
Kottayam, Rep. by its Registrar. 2. Vice Chancellor, The Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam. 3. Controller of Examinations, The Mahatma Gandhi University, Priyadarsini Hills, Kottayam – 686 560. 4. The Principal, Sreenarayana Gurukulam College of Engineering, Kadayiruppu. P.O., Kolencherry. | (Notice not sent) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 (University, Vice Chancellor and Controller of Examinations respectively) and the 4th opposite party institution. The complainant was a student of the 4th opposite party institution. The 4th opposite party being the Principal of the institution had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the complainant. The controversy or the validity of the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the institution cannot be questioned in a consumer complaint. This Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute regarding the validity or controversy of a disciplinary proceedings, since it is not a dispute between a consumer and a service provider.
2. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha IV 2009 CPJ 34 (SC) held that imparting of education and conducting examinations etc. by an educational institution does not amount to deficiency in service. It is also held that the Statutory Board like the University or other institutions are not service providers and that the examinee is not a consumer. In Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeeth Kaur (2010) II SC 159, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that, since the University does not render any service, they will not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, while performing the statutory duties.
3. Having considered the pros and cons of the complaint, we are of the firm view that the remedy for the complainant lies elsewhere not in this Forum. Therefore, the complainant is directed to receive back the complaint and the related documents to submit before the appropriate authority, if so advised.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 22nd day of September 2014.
Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/- V.K. Beenakumari, Member.
Senior Superintendent.
