Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/243/2014

Sahil Thakral S/o Ram Nath Thakral - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tilak Raj Chadha Institute Of Management & Technology - Opp.Party(s)

None for complainant.

16 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint  No. 243 of 2014

                                                                                    Date of institution: 21.05.2014

                                                                                    Date of decision: 16.12.2016.

Sahil Thakral aged about 24 years son of Sh. Ram Nath Thakral, resident of H. No. 832, M-1, Sant Nagar, Hissar, Distt. Hissar at present resident of H. No. 513/R, Parshu Ram Chowk Model Town, Yamuna Nagar.                           

   …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

Tilak Raj Chadha Institute of Management & Technology, Yamuna Nagar, through its Director.

                                                                                                …Respondent.                                       

 

 

BEFORE: SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                 SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:    None for complainant.  

                 Sh. Harinder Kumar, Advocate, counsel for respondent.              

 

ORDER

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act praying therein that respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) be directed to issue the roll number slip to the complainant for examination which was to be held on 24.05.2014 and thereafter to allow the complainant to appear in MBA Final in all papers and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that in the year 2012 complainant got admission in the Op Institute and deposited requisite fees. The complainant passed his examination for first (1^st)  semester, second (2^nd) semester and third (3^rd) semester but the complainant could not attend the classes due to some health problem in the forth (4^th) semester, so, the attendance of the complainant become short. Upon this reason, the OP institute has withheld the roll number of the complainant. The complainant requested the OP Institute a number of times to issue roll number slip to the complainant and allow him to appear in the examination but they totally refused to listen the genuine request of the complainant. Lastly, prayed that if OP is not directed to immediately issue the roll number slip then the complainant will suffer irreparable loss of injures. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP Institute appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complaint is bad for non-joiner and mis-joinder of necessary parties as the complainant has not impleaded the Kurukshtra University Kurukshetra which was necessary party in this complaint for the reason that roll number of the students is issued by the University, degree is also issued by the University; this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the institutions are not service provider and a student who taken an examination is not a consumer and as such complaint is liable to be outrightly dismissed. The complainant has concealed the true and real facts in this complaint. As per University Ordinance attendance of 75 % lecture in each paper is mandatory as per clause 8 of the Ordinance which is reproduced here as under:

The second, third and fourth semester examination shall be open to a regular student, who has attended not less than 75% of lectures in each paper. A deficiency upto 10% may be condoned by the Chair Person of the department.”

4.                     In the present case, as there was shortage in the lecture of the complainant, so, the roll number issued by the University was returned mentioning the fact regarding deficiency in lecture and now in the absence of Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra as a party in this complaint no relief can be granted to the complainant. On merit, controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.  

5.                     Complainant failed to adduce any evidence, hence his evidence was closed by court order dated 08.08.2016. However, at the time of filing of complaint some documents were tendered as Annexure A and  B in support of his complaint.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP Institute tendered into evidence Ordinance of Business Administration (MBA Examination) as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of detail of lecture attended by the complainant as annexure r-2, Photo copy of intimation letter dated 18.02.2014  to the parents of the complainant as annexure R-3, Photo copy of postal receipt as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of intimation letter dated 30.03.2014 to the patents as Annexure R-5, Photo copy of postal receipt as Annexure R-6, Photo copy of intimation letter dated 19.04.2014 to the patents as annexureC-7, Photo copy of postal receipt as Annexure C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP Institute.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the OP Institute and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.

8.                     The present complaint has been filed by the complainant just seeking directions to the OP Institute to issue roll number slip for the examination which was going to be held w.e.f. 24.05.2014 as the OP Institute has not issued the roll number to the complainant on account of shortage of attendance and the necessary directions to issue the roll number in question was issued by this Forum which is duly evident from the interim order passed by our Predecessor on dated 23.05.2014 but after that neither the complainant filed any evidence  whether necessary roll number was issued to him or not and if the roll number in question was issued what was the fate of the exam nor any application against the Op Institute has been filed by the complainant. Even, the complainant has failed to adduce any evidence and evidence of the complainant was closed by court order dated 08.08.2016. On the other hand, no such evidence has also been filed by the OP institute in this regard. Even in the written statement no such fact has been disclosed by the OP institute whether roll number in question was issued to the complainant or not and if the roll number was issued then what was the result in question of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OP institute referred the case law titled as Bihar School Education Board Versus Suresh Parshad Sinha, 2009(3) Apex Court Judgment page 424 wherein it has been held that Education Institutions are not service provider and the students who taken an admission is not consumer and as such a complaint with regard to process of examination is not maintainable. Similarly, the OP Institute also referred another case law titled as Harinder Singh Grewal Versus State of Punjab, 2002(2) PLR page 524 wherein it has been held that “ when a specific eligibility is prescribed by the institution, for appearance of a student in a particular examination then the same cannot be condoned by the court.”

9.                     After hearing the counsel for the Op Institute and going through the contents of the complaint as well as documents placed on file, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the present complaint and the present complaint is nothing except abuse of process of law. The roll number of the complainant was withheld by the OP Institute as per rules/ Ordinance of the Kurukshtra University, Kurukshetra Annexure R-1. Hence, there was neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Institute. Even, the complaint of the complainant was not maintainable before this Forum in view of the law laid down  in case titled as Bihar School Education Board Versus Suresh Parshad Sinha and Harinder Singh Grewal Versus State of Punjab(supra).

10.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court 16.12.2016.           

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                    D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNANAGAR

                                                                                   

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                    MEMBER.