Date – 26.03.2021
SRI SWADES RANJAN RAY
President
Facts of this case in short, is that the Complainant took online admission for the Certificate in Consumer Protection (CCP) course for the session of January-June, 2018 by completing all the prescribed formalities and paying the prescribed course fee from the A/C No. 20090301092, the State Bank of India, Beadon Street Branch on 28.12.2017. As per given list of the then available study centres, she had chosen Ishwar Chandra Pathabhavan (Centre Code: 2801) as her nearest study centre which was harmonious with the busy schedule of a practicing advocate and the motto of the university of bringing education to the students, as well.
The Certificate in Consumer Protection (CCP) is a certificate course offered by Indira Gandhi National Open University with a course duration of 6 (six) months. Maximum duration of the course would be for 2 (two) years, i.e. 4 (four) semesters.
After incepting of the course in January, 2018, the complainant received her study material directly from the Delhi head office of the university by post and immediately communicated to the study centre for the schedule of the classes as according to the course instruction she had to clear two written papers along with one project and field work paper for which guidance was required to accomplish and after that obtaining seal and signature of the faculty/teacher/guide was compulsory, too.
While communicating to the student help desk of the study centre, it informed the complainant that since long the study centre, the O.P. No.-1 herein does not have any faculty / counselor / guide / instructor for the Certificate Course. When asked for clarification, the study centre authority casually replied that as they did not have sufficient student in previous semesters, they did not spend on a paid faculty as their normal practice. But they did not consider it necessary to inform the University head office at New Delhi to delete the name of the centre from the list of study centres for the course provided by the university at the time of the admission. They did not even bother that on that very semester any student, i.e. the complainant, had taken admission in the course who had opted their centre for the course.
The study centre suggested the complainant to contact the regional office at Bikash Bhavan, Salt Lake, i.e. O.P. No.-2 herein, and seek help to appoint a faculty/teacher/guide and express their inability to help.
As an alternative, regional office suggested the complainants to attend classes at Adhyapak Jyotish Chandra Ghosh balika Vidyalaya, Bhudeb Bhabhan, Bara Bazar, Chinsurah, Hooghly-712101, Center Code:2886, which is situated at Chinsurah, Hooghly, miles away and in different district.
Though it was ironical that IGNOU cannot arrange a faculty / instructor /counselor for an important course on protection of consumers in the heart of the capital city of the State and practically impossible for the complainant to attend classes personally by going Chinsurah, in district Hooghly and miles away from the place of the complainant and the study centre as well, she talked to the then centre coordinator of Adhyapak Jyotish Chandra Ghosh balika Vidyalaya, Bhudeb Bhabhan, Bara Bazar, Chinsurah, Hooghly-712101, Center Code:2886, from whom he came to know that at that point of time they also did not have any faculty/guide/teacher for CCP. The lady counselor, who was usually talking classes, had shifted her base and as they do not have any student for the course for previous few semesters, the center also was reluctant to appoint her. Complainant tried personally to talk to the faculty as per suggestion of center coordinator of Chinsurah study center, but he humbly declined her request basically on two grounds, firstly, she had moved from her erstwhile locale, hence cannot take classes, secondly, as he is not authorized faculty by regional center for the study center of the complainant, he has no authority to take classes and check and sign the project / field work report, which were valid at their face that time.
In the mean time, complainant received a phone call from her study centre (Centre code: 2801) for kind of orientation of students for the January-June, 20108 semester. On attending the same, complainant put her problem before the centre coordinator directly where she assured that she will try her level best to arrange faculty but in the same orientation it was also announced that the project paper have to be submitted for checking and signing within one week from that date.
That the complainant found it impossible to submit any project work without any guidelines and within such a short period and when she communicated that, centre co-ordinator suggested her to drop the semester and appear in July-December, 2018 semester, and he will arrange the same faculty of Chinsurah Centre (Centre code: 2886) and / or any other eligible faculty / instructor / counselor in the meantime.
Many phone calls were made to the study centre, mails were sent to the regional centre, but finally the problem was not solved.
Hence, this case, with a prayer to refund the admission fees and with other reliefs.
O.P.s are appearing and contesting this case by filing the W/V, wherein O.P.s are denied the material allegation made against them. It is the only case of the O.P.s that petitioner / complainant has no locus standing to file this case before this forum / commission. This case is filed only to harass and hackle the national institution with malafide intensions by filing this case. Complainant has turnish and malign the image and reputation of the institution.
As an educational institute, O.P.s are always try to accommodate the complainant for her certificate course and also give the alternatives but, complainant failed to accept it. It is the further case of the O.P.s that IGNOU is not within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and the allegation of deficiency of service will not applicable in the case of IGNOU. Hence, complainant has no cause of action to file this case and liable to be dismissed.
Points for decision:
- Whether complainant has any cause of action to file this case or not?
- Whether complainant is able to prove the applicability of Consumer Protection Act in case of IGNOU or not?
- Whether complainant has got any relief / reliefs as prayed for or not?
Decision with reason:
All these points taken together for sake of convenience and brevity.
I have carefully perused the complaint, Written Version and the Brief Notes of Argument (BNA) of complainant and the O.P.s.
It is the only case of the complainant that he got admission for certificate course on Consumer Protection Act for a tenure of 2 years with 4 semesters. Accordingly, complainant paid course fees as per requirement of the O.P.s. But, unfortunately O.P. University failed to make the necessary arrangement as per terms and condition of the certificate course and O.P. give the alternatives which is not possible for the complainant to avail the said facilities and which was not mentioned in their course guideline. Hence, O.P. University failed to provide the service as per terms and condition of the course and due to failure to provide the course facilities as per terms is amount to deficiency of service and the IGNOU i.e. the O.P.s must within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.
In reply to this, the only plea taken by the O.P.s is that the IGNOU will not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. In support of this contusion Ld. Counsel refers so many rulings of Apex Court as well as the Hon’ble National Commission. Such as,
Hon’ble Apex are:
- Bihar School Examination board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC), CIVIL APPEAL No. 3911 of 2003.
- Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (II) SCC 159/Civil Appeal No. 6807, 2008, dtd. 19.07.2010.
- P.T. Koshy & Anrs. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 22532 of 2012 decided on 09.08.2012 / LAWS (SC)-2012-8-105, decided on August 09.2012.
Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Consumer (NCD):
- Sachida Nand Sharma Vs. CBSE – 2003(1)CPJ (NC) 251, dtd. 20.12.2002.
I have carefully perused the above references wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the University will not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act as it is not rendering the service as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.
This ruling has been also relied on the Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (II) SCC 159/Civil Appeal No. 6807, 2008, dtd. 19.07.2010.
National Commission also rely on the i.e. revision petition No. 1932 of 2019.
The Hon’ble Supreme court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, (supra) has taken a view as following:
“Consumer Protection-consumer / Consumer dispute / Locus Standi-Generally-University-if covered- Direction to issue B.Ed. degree against rules of examination-legality-Held, respondent as a student is neither consumer nor University is rendering any service to its students-Hence, Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain complaint-Respondent pursued M.A. and B.Ed. simultaneously contrary to general rules of examination which prohibits pursuing two courses simultaneously-She had chosen to continue MA, while admission to B.Ed. was cancelled-without disclosing the said fact, respondent managed to appear for supplementary examination for B.Ed., and passed, which results were withheld on detecting the mischief-Complainant filed for direction to award B.Ed. degree-Held, claim of respondent was for a direction to appellant to act contrary to its own rules- No court has competence to issue direction contrary to law nor can direct an authority to act in contravention of statutory provisions-Hence, National Commission should not have issued direction to appellant to act contrary to statutory provisions-Also, respondent cannot plead estoppels either by conduct or against statute so as to gain any advantage just because she was erroneously allowed to appear in the examination-Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Ss.2(1)(o) and 2(1)(d)(iii)”.
In Bihar School Examination board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC), it has been held that:
“(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 2(I)(g), 2(1)(o), 11, 19, 23 –Education Result not published- complainant had to re-appear in exams-Loss of one year suffered-compensation granted by Consumer Forum-Order upheld by State and National commission- Civil appeal field- Examination Board while conducting examination, in discharge of statutory function, does not offer ‘services’ to candidates- Examination fee paid by student not consideration for availment of service, but charge paid for privilege of participation in examination- Board not ‘service provider’- Student appearing in examination, not ‘consumer’- complaint under Consumer Protection Act not maintainable against Board/University- Orders of Consumer For a set aside”.
Relying on the above reference, I hold that IGNOU will not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, complainant will not get relief as prayed for and complainant has no cause of action to file this case.
In the result, this complain case fails.
Court fee paid correct.
Hence,
it is
ORDERED
that this complain case be and the same is dismissed on contest.
No order as to cost.
Let a copy of this judgement be handed over to all the parties at free of cost.
