DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No.86 of 05-03-2013
Decided on 13-03-2013
Seema Rani D/o Bhagwat Singh R/o 31152, St.No.12/1, Paras Ram Nagar, Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
1.The Registrar, Guru Ravidas Ayurved University, Punjab, Hoshiarpur.
2.The Registrar, Punjab Nursing Registration Council, SCO No.109, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh.
3.The Principal, Mahant Gurbanta Dass, School of Nursing, Goniana Road, Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.J.S Sandhu, counsel for complainant.
For Opposite parties: Not Summoned.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has passed three and half year Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery as a regular student of Mahant Gurbanta Dass School of Nursing Bathinda. The opposite party No.1 has conducted the exam for the third year on behalf of the opposite party No.2 on the basis of passing IInd year examination. The complainant has passed the examination under Roll No.11307 and the opposite party No.1 has issued Result-Cum-Detail Marks Card vide Sr.No.421 on dated 19.4.2012 but it has mis-spellet the name of her father as “Bhagwant Singh” whereas the correct spellings are “Bhagwat Singh” already mentioned in the Result-Cum-Detail Marks Cards for the examination of Ist and IInd years issued by the opposite party No.2. The complainant requested the opposite parties to correct the spellings of her father's name but nothing has been done. The complainant has also got sent a legal notice on dated 15.11.2012 followed by reminders dated 9.12.2012 and 14.1.2013. Due to the non availability of Result-Cum-Detail Marks Card and registration number of General Nursing and Midwifery, the complainant is unable to join/apply for the job etc., causing irreparable loss to her. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties to issue her fresh detail marks card and registration certificate with correct spelling of the name of her father and pay her cost and compensation.
2. The learned counsel of the complainant is given preliminary hearing to the complaint and record placed on file perused by this Forum.
3. The matter in dispute is regarding the correction in the name of the father of the complainant in her Result-Cum-Detail Marks Card in serial No.421 from Bhagwant Singh to Bhagwat Singh. The matter in dispute is not a consumer dispute in the light of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Chairman Desh Bhagat Dental College and Others Vs. Archita Vedi in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 13472/2012 decided on 7-5-2012 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred the judgment titled Maharishi Dayanad University Vs. Surjeet Kaur reported in 2010 (11) SCC 159, and has categorically held:-
“That education institutions cannot be dealt with by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the reason that institutions imparting education is not providing service and they are not service provider. The Consumer Fora do not have jurisdiction to deal with educational institutions.”
Further 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.”
4. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above the complaint is not maintainable in this fora hence dismissed in limini without any order as to cost. Before parting with this judgement, it is made clear that the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority/forum/court of the competent jurisdiction for the redressal of her grievances, if so permitted and advised by law.
5. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
13-03-2013
Vikramjit Kaur Soni
President
Amarjeet Paul
Member
Sukhwinder Kaur
Member
