DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.12 of 06-01-2011 Decided on 28-01-2011 Hira Nand son of Sh.Megh Nath, resident of H.No.21050, Street No.11, Ajit Road, Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus The Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training, through its Director, Plot No.1-A, Sector 36-A, Chandigarh. Indian Industrial Training Institute, Zila Parishad Complex, G.T.Road, Near Hanuman Chowk, Bathinda, through its Principal. Sat Parkash Sharma, Chairman, Indian Industrial Training Institute, Zila Parishad Complex, G.T.Road, Near Hanuman Chowk, Bathinda, r/o 180, Phase-III, Model Town, Bathinda. Kulwinder Singh son of Thana Singh the then Superintendent/Instructor, Indian Industrial Training Institute, Zila Praishad Complex, G.T.Road, Near Hanuman Chowk, Bathinda, r/o village Burj Gill, Tehsil Phul, Distt. Bathinda. Anand Kumar Kulshesht, then Controller, Indian Industrial Training Institute, Zila Parishad Complex, G.T.Road, Near Hanuman Chowk, Bathinda, r/o 13176, Gali No.1, Namdev Marg, Bathinda. Karamjit Singh son of Kulwant Singh, Parajapat village Seikhu, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda, Deputy Superintendent, Indian Industrial Training Institute, Zila Parishad Complex, G.T.Road, Near Hanuman Chowk, Bathinda. Jaswinder Singh son of Jaswant Singh, r/o Kot Bhai, Distt. Muktsar.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.S.S.Dhillon, counsel for the complainant.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant and his brother Sunil Kumar were students of Art and Craft in the institute of the opposite party No.2 and paid all the necessary fees to the opposite party No.2 for the above mentioned course and appeared in final exam, conducted by the opposite party No.1 after duly paying the examination fee to it. The opposite party No.1 has general control for conducting examination of the technical courses in Punjab. The complainant and his brother were students of IInd year and they were issued Roll No.07417237014936 and the roll number of his brother was 07417237014937. On 05.08.2009, the complainant appeared in the exam of Commercial Arts in the institute of the opposite party No.2 which was supervised and controlled by the opposite party Nos.3 to 7. The complainant further alleged that before conducting the examination, A.K. Kulshesht, Superintendent, Controller exam and Karamjit Singh, Deputy Superintendent, ITI, Zila Parishad, Bathinda, opposite party Nos.3 to 6 had demanded an amount of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant and his brother for the paper of Commercial Art but under compelled circumstances, the complainant and his brother had paid Rs.1,000/- only. This matter was also reported to the Chairman of the Institute at Bathinda but no action was taken against by the Chairman-opposite party No.3. The complainant had submitted his drawing sheet in the paper of Commercial Arts of Indian Handicrafts in which “Hath Wali Pakhi” was prepared and the result of the same was declared on 08.10.2009 and the complainant had given less marks i.e. only 34 marks out of 80 marks were awarded to the complainant in the above said paper. On 12.10.2009 and 20.10.2009, the complainant and his brother inquired the matter and found that with malafide intention, Kulwinder Singh, Superintendent, A.K.Kulshesht, Karamjit Singh, Deputy Superintendent, ITI, Zila Parishad, Bathinda had changed the drawing sheet of the complainant submitted by him with the other candidate and the paper sheet was not signed by the Superintendent whereas there was no seal of the examination centre. The brother of the complainant, Sunil Kumar submitted an application for re-checking and change of paper sheet which was forwarded to Punjab State Board of Technical Education Institute. This application was given to the opposite party No.1 on 20.10.2009 and after inquiring, the controller of examination found that roll numbers 07417237014936 and 07417237014937 are of the same pen and does not bear the signature of the centre Superintendent and stamp of the centre. The complainant again submitted an application on 29.05.2010 to the Director, Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Board Punjab, Chandigarh but again no action was taken. Application under the RTI Act was filed to the opposite party No.1 but no information was given then the compliant was filed an appeal before the Information Commissioner, Punjab while appearing in the appeal Deputy Director admitted before the commission that some irregularities have been committed for conducting the examination and an application was also given by the complainant to SSP, Bathinda which was investigated by DSP (city) and after getting the legal opinion from Deputy D.A. (legal), FIR No.188 dated 11.03.2010 PS Kotwali, Bathinda u/s 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC was lodged. The complainant further alleged that his academic record was very brilliant and he has obtained 75% marks in 10th class and in the examination of Ist year of Art and Craft, he obtained 75% marks and in the IInd year, he was given 684 marks out of 1000 marks as the paper of the complainant was changed and due to abovesaid non-payment of illegal gratification, the internal assessment was not good. The bail application of the opposite parties was dismissed by the Session Judge, Bathinda. Hence, the complainant has alleged for unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and has prayed for Rs.8 lacs for mental tension and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.11 lacs for spoiling his career and besides these, he has also demanded Rs.11,000/- as compensation. 2. Preliminary hearing have been given to this compliant. Arguments placed on file by the complainant has been minutely perused. 3. The complainant has written a letter to the Principal, Indian ITI that he has got reappear in Commercial Art examination and this letter was forwarded by the Principal for necessary action. The findings have been given by Punjab State Board of Technical Education. The complainant himself written in his application that FIR has been lodged against the opposite parties and they were not granted bail. 4. The main allegation of the complainant against the opposite parties is regarding the change of the paper sheet and giving him less marks in the said paper. In this regard, the support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 2009 CTJ 1057 (SC)(CP) in case titled Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, wherein, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:- “The Board is a statutory authority – Its function is to conduct school examination – This is its statutory function – This function involves holding periodical examination, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates – These are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function – It cannot be divided as partly statutory and partly administrative – Examination fee paid for the examination is not a consideration for availment of any service but a charge paid for participating in the examination – Held, the Board is not a 'service provider' nor the student who takes the examination a 'consumer' – Consequently, the complaint against the Board will not be maintainable. Education – Consumer – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d) – Appeal – Section 23 – Complainant's son and another student allotted the same Roll No.496 by the appellant for the Bihar Secondary School Examination in 1998 – However, the Centre Superintendent added 'A' to his son's Roll No. making it 496A, which he duly communicated to the appellant's office at Patna – Result of the complainant's son not published – Hence, the boy suffered loss of one year as he had to reappear in the Board Examination the following year – Complainant prayed for compensation before the District Forum – In its reply the Board questioned the Forum's jurisdiction contending the complainant not to be a consumer – Complaint allowed directing the Board to pay compensation of Rs.12,000/- to the complainant with 12% interest – Board's appeal dismissed by the State Commission – Aggrieved, it moved the National Commission but without any success – Hence, the present appeal – Appeal allowed – Impugned orders of the Forums below set aside.” Further the support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in case titled Anamika Walia Vs. Registrar, HP University, 2011 CTJ 234 (CP)(SCDRC), wherein, it has been held that:- “Education – Deficiency in service – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) – Section 2(1)(o) – Complainant declared failed in the BA Part I result announced on 21.07.2005 – She claimed to have sent an application for revaluation alongwith a bank draft of Rs.100/- on 02.08.2005 – Received no reply despite repeated requests – Therefore, complaint filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service – Complainant actually applied for revaluation in her application received by the opposite party only on 21.03.2006 – Rejected as received after about eight months from the due date – Deficiency in service not proved – Complaint dismissed – Appeal – Judgment of the Supreme Court in Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prashad Sinha, 2009 CTJ 1057 (SC)(CP) referred to – Held, a University in conducting an examination discharges only its statutory function and the student taking its examination does not hire or avail of any service for consideration – Also held that the respondent as such was not a service provider and the appellant not a consumer – Appeal dismissed – Impugned order confirmed. Consumer – Education – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d) – A School Board or University in conducting an examination does not provide any service but discharges only its statutory function – Therefore, a student taking its examination is not a consumer as he has not availed of any service for consideration.” The complainant has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble National consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. 2009 (IV) CPJ 309 (NC), wherein, it has been held that:- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g) – Education – Wrong result – Complainant appeared in exam, shown absent, declared fail – Complaint allowed by Forum – Order upheld in appeal – Hence revision – Contention, complaint barred by Section 82, Order 27 Rule 5A, CPC – Contention not acceptable – Remedy under C.P.Act in addition to remedies available under general law – Complainant consumer entitled to relief – Deficiency in service on part of O.P. proved – Complainant failed in other subject also – Compensation awarded by lower Fora reduced. (ii) Education – Consumer – Wrong result – Fee charged for appearing in examination – Candidate consumer vis-a-vis declaration of result. Result: R.P.partly allowed.” In the same year, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled law in case titled Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prashad Sinha,(Supra), wherein, it has been held that education is not service, provided by the Board rather it is the statutory function of the Board and the complainant is not consumer. Hence, the authority replied upon by the complainant cannot be relied upon in the light of law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. From the abovesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Board is the statutory body performing the different statutory functions. The Board is not a service provider nor the student who takes the examination, is a 'consumer'. Hence, this complaint is dismissed in limini without any order as to cost. 6. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum 28-01-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member (Amarjeet Paul) Member
|
