Miss Tista Nath,

D/O- Sri Goutam Kumar Nath,

Indranagar, P.O. Kunjaban,

New Capital Complex,

West Tripura, Agartala.

 

Vs.

 

(1) The Principal, Women's College,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. East Agartala,

West Tripura District, Agartala.

 

(2) The Controller of Examination,

Tripura University,

P.O. Suryamaninagar,

District- Sepahijala, Tripura.

 

 

No step from the side of the complainant.

Learned Counsel Smt. Srabani Bhattacharjee filed hazira on behalf of the O.P. No.1.

On earlier occasion we heard both sides on the question of maintainability and today was fixed for passing necessary order. Hence, order is passed.

In brief the complainant's case is that the complainant is a student of Women's College, Agartala Tripura and she is out going student of 6th Semistar of this college. College is affiliated to the Tripura University, presently, Central University. Her allegation is that during pandemic situation the 6th semistar examination were conducted  by the Women's College, Agartala, from 4th to 8th October, 2020. Before that as per direction of the O.P. the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.250/- for exam fee, exam center fee,  and mark sheet fee vide money receipt  no- 50775 dated 28.09.2020. Complainant accessed the online examination fee structure for BA/ BSC/ B.Com(Final 6th semistar, 2020) under the RTI Act 2005. From SPIO, Director of Higher Education, Govt. of Tripura. 

From the documents she found that fees structure of all students have been reduced during pandemic period. She further alleged that without affording the college premises an amount of Rs.65/- as examination centre fee has been charged by the O.P. from the complainant. Not only that no stationery articles was provided to the students for online examination, but, fact remained that the students were compelled to deposit an amount of Rs.145/- for the online examination including mark sheet fees of Rs.40/- illegally. It is also alleged that the charging of such fees amounts to   unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the activities of the O.Ps she submitted a letter on 16.10.2020 to the Principal, Women's College, Agartala and requested her to refund the excess amount/ fees which have been charged during the pandemic situation but no refund was made. Hence, she filed the complaint against the O.Ps.

On the other hand, O.Ps appeared and contested the complaint and submitted their written statement. At the time of hearing learned counsel Mr. Raju Datta on behalf of the O.P. No.2 submitted that the complaint petition is not maintainable as per decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. He relied upon the decisions of Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha reported in (2009) 8 SSC 483 and Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur reported in (2010) (11) SCC 159.

Mr. Datta submitted that relying upon those decisions the Hon'ble National Commission recently passed  a judgment and decided that student is not a 'Consumer' and educational institutions are not providing any 'Service' under the C.P. Act, 1986. 

Learned Counsel Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee appearing for the O.P. No.1 adopted the submission of Learned advocate Mr. Datta and in addition he relied upon another judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy and Ors Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust and Ors decided in Appeal (Civil) 22532 of 2012. 

On the other hand, complainant Smt. Tista Nath submitted that recently Supreme Court admitted a Civil appeal challenging the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed in CC No. 261/2012 dated 20.01.2020. She submitted that there are divergent views of the Apex Court in the matter of educational institution or university whether they are subject to the provision of the C.P. Act and at this stage it can not be said that her complaint is not maintainable.            

We have gone through the citations which are relied upon by the counsels of the O.Ps. There is no dispute that the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redresssal Commission decided the matter that  a  student is not a consumer and educational institutions are not providing any service under C.P. Act. So long the decisions of the Apex Court are not reverted, we are bound to obey the latest decision of the apex court as well as National Commission. Since, it is settled law that the students is not a consumer, we are in the opinion that the instant complaint is not maintainable. Hence, complaint petition is dismissed.

Supply copy of the order to both the parties.