Sagar Kattal through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that opposite party be directed to return his original certificates. He has further claimed Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony, physical harassment and for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. He has also claimed Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses, all in the interest of justice.
- The case of the complainant in brief is that he joined the college of the opposite party for Diploma in Mechanical Engineering in 2014 and also deposited the requisite fee etc. alongwith his original school certificates with the opposite party at the time of taking the admission. It was pleaded that while in 2nd Semester he met with an accident and suffered injuries due to which he could not continue his diploma and he was forced to leave the college of the opposite party under compelling circumstances. It was pleaded that complainant approached the opposite party requested them to return his original document i.e. certificates etc but opposite party did not return the same intentionally and willfully whereas the complainant was in dire need of the same. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant also moved written applications to the opposite party but of no avail. It is further pleaded that it is case of clear cut deficiency, gross negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party who failed to return the original certificates to the complainant without any reasonable cause or excuse. It was also pleaded that complainant also served a registered notice dated 19.6.2015 upon the opposite party through his counsel for obtaining the original certificates within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the notice. The same was duly served but despite the service of the same neither opposite party return the original certificates nor given any reply to the notice and finally refused to admit the legal and genuine claim of the complainant, hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party who appeared through their representative but opposite party failed to file the reply to the complaint and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.10.2015.
4. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence.
5. From the pleadings and evidence on record we find that the complainant in this complaint has prayed for return of his original certificates alongwith compensation from the opposite party which is an educational institution. The matter has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as “P.T Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors.” 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC) that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter of educational institutions and there is no relationship of the consumer and the service provider because education is not a commodity”. The Apex Court has also observed in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur reported in 2010 (4) CLT 538 (SC)=2010 (II) SCC 159 that educational institutions cannot be dealt with by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The educational institution imparting education is not providing service and they are not service provider to be covered under the Consumer Protection Act. There is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties.
6. Most recently the same law has been followed by the Hon'ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal titled as “Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa College & Othrs. Vs. Manpreet Singh” reported in 2015 (3) CLT 419 (Pb) where the Hon'ble State Commission has held that “The educational institution imparting education is not providing service and they are not service provider to be covered under the Consumer Protection Act”.
7. In view of the above said laws laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble State Commission, we find that the present complaint is not maintainable before Distt. Consumer Forum and hence is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, complainant shall be at liberty to approach Civil Court of competent jurisdiction if he so desires.
8. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
NOV. 19, 2015 Member.
*YP*
