Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/117/2020

Prem Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Vice Chancellor, Guru-Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

05 Mar 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/117/2020
Date of Institution	:	02/03/2020
Date of Decision	:	05/03/2020

 

Prem Kumar s/o Sh. Sewa Ram, aged 70 years, Caste Kamboj, resident of flat No.2170A, block 6 (Housing Board), Sector 63, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Vice Chancellor, Guru-Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology, Hissar (Haryana).
2. The Incharge ZIIMT Study Centre Distance Education Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology, Hissar near Income Tax Office, Model Town, Fatehabad, District Fatehabad, Haryana.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                

PRESENT

:

Complainant in person

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.      The crux of the allegations made in the consumer complaint are, complainant who is an advocate by profession joined the PGDCA course of the OP University through distance education programme and deposited total fee of Rs.34,650/- on different dates. The complainant took up the examination, but, was declared ‘Fail’ in 6 out of 8 subjects mentioned in paragraph No.7 of the consumer complaint. The copies of answer books were obtained through RTI and thereafter matter was taken up with the OP University and other authorities. The OP advised the complainant to get the revaluation done which he did not want to apply. Hence, the complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and filed the instant consumer complaint praying for refund of total fee of Rs.34,650/- alongwith compensation of Rs.6.00 lakhs, litigation expenses and interest.
2.     We have heard the complainant at the preliminary stage and gone through the record.
3.     From the above said allegations it is clear the complainant felt aggrieved as he was declared ‘Fail’ in 6 out of 8 subjects.  According to him, he ought to have been declared ‘Pass’.  We may refer here, it is not the self evaluation which counts, but, the evaluation done by the examiners is to be counted as marks. Remedy with the complainant was to apply for re-evaluation as was advised by the OP University.  Being declared ‘Fail’ in the examination does not in any way show OPs were deficient in rendering services to the complainant. He had applied, taken up examination and on getting failed wants to get back refund. By any stretch of imagination it cannot be construed, complainant himself will evaluate his answer books and get himself declared as ‘Pass’ in the subjects. It is the University i.e. the OPs who were to evaluate the papers and then to declare the result.
4.     The OP is a Govt. University imparting education. In a latest judgment Manu Solanki & Ors. Vs. Vinayaka Mission University, Consumer Complaint No.261 of 2012 alongwith other cases, the Hon'ble National Commission under paragraph No.7 had referred to the case titled as Bihar School Examination Board Vs Suresh Prasad Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC 483, dated 04.09.2009, and the relevant portion thereof is reproduced below :-

“13. The object of the Act is to cover in its net, services offered or rendered for a consideration. Any service rendered for a consideration is presumed to be a commercial activity in its broadest sense (including professional activity or quasi-commercial activity). But the Act does not intended to cover discharge of a statutory function of examining whether a candidate is fit to be declared as having successfully completed a course by passing the examination. The fact that in the course of conduct of the examination, or evaluation of answer-scripts, or furnishing of mark-sheets or certificates, there may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Board into a service-provider for a consideration, nor convert the examinee into a consumer who can make a complaint under the Act. We are clearly of the view that the Board is not a ‘service provider’ and a student who takes an examination is not a ‘consumer’ and consequently, complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board.”

5.     Further under paragraph No.18 of the judgment ibid, reference was made to the judgment Smt. Taneja and Another Vs. Calcutta Distt. Forum and others (AIR 1992 Cal 95), and the relevant paragraph 20 thereof is reproduced below :-

“20. From the above discussion it is crystal clear that Education does not come within the scope of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Calcutta District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the respondent No. 3 and all the orders passed on the complaint by the Calcutta District Forum are illegal and without jurisdiction.”

6.     Further under paragraph No.41 of its judgment, Hon'ble National Commission observed as under :-

“41. Learned Counsel for the Educational Institution in Revision Petition No.1731 to 1733 of 2017 argued that imparting education in a school is not limited to teaching in a class room and involves within its ambit other co-curricular activities including taking out the students for educational trips etc., for their overall growth and development and improvement of their faculties.  In that matter, the children were taken by the Respondents for an “educational excursion trip” to a place of historical importance, and it was contended that, any shortcoming or negligence during the course of such an act falls within the definition of imparting education and therefore shall not fall within the domain of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986. Another issue which was raised is with respect to any defect or deficiency which may arise on account of a student drowning in a swimming pool maintained by the Educational Institution. We are of the considered opinion that such incidental activities of an Educational Institution while imparting education would also not amount to rendering any service under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”

The precedent holds, educational institution is not a service provider and it imparts education and it would not amount to rendering any service under Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, consumer complaint on this score is not maintainable.

7.     We have also noticed, Vice Chancellor was sought to be sued as OP-1. However, Vice Chancellor is not a legal personality of the University but a Registrar of the University is juristic person as per legal jurisprudence. 
8.     From all the corners, we find this consumer complaint is meritless and we proceed to dismiss the same at preliminary stage.
9.     Certified copy of this order be sent to the complainant, free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
05/03/2020	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President