Delhi

West Delhi

CC/8/732

MANOJ SINGHANIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI - Opp.Party(s)

20 May 2017

ORDER

 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri

Date of institution:30.03.2006/ 30.09.2008

Complaint Case. No.1427 of 2006/ 732 of 2008    Date of order:20.05.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Dr. ManojSinghania S/O ShriChiranjiLal R/O D-29, Old Gupta Colony, Vijay Nagar, Delhi-110007                                                                                                             Complainant

VERSUS

The Vice Chancellor, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007            

Opposite Party-1

The Secretary, Education, Government of India, New Delhi

Opposite Party-2

The Controller of Examinations, University of Delhi,Delhi-110007

                                                                                                                        Opposite Party-3

The Dean, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007

                                                                                                                        Opposite Party-4

The Chairman, Board of Research Studies, Faculty of Medical Sciences, V.P. Chest Institute Building, Delhi-110007                                                   Opposite Party-5

The Assistant Registrar, Administration-II, V.P. Chest Institute, Delhi-110007

                                                                                                                            Opposite Party-6

Dr. V.K. Vijayan, Director, V.P.C.I., University of Delhi, Delhi-110007

                                                                                                                        Opposite Party-7

The Assistant Registrar (Medical) University of Delhi, Delhi-110007

                                                                                                                            Opposite Party-8

Dr. Asha Gandhi, Superintendent Examination, (April, 2004), Lady Harding Medical College, Delhi                                                                                          Opposite Party-9

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

 Briefly case of the complainant is that he took admission in two years P.G. Diploma in T.B. and Chest Diseaseswith opposite parties no.5,6 and 7 on payment of requisite fee. The complainants admission was delayed with opposite parties due to late completion of admission process by the opposite parties no.2 and 4. The complainant was not allowed to write examination by the opposite parties on the ground that there was delay of 13 days in completion of the above mentioned course. The complainant was given delayed information. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the present complaint for directions to opposite partiesto pay compensation and litigation expenses.

            Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties. None appeared on behalf of opposite parties no.2,8 and 9. Therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.05.2006.

The opposite parties no.1,3 to 5 and 8 appeared and filed joint reply admitting that the complainant took admission with the opposite parties. They asserted that the complainant is not a consumer under section 2(d) of the C.P.A. act 1986. The complainant is trying to take advantage of his own wrong as he was well aware of the university norms and rules. The complaint is false, frivolous and not maintainable.  More over there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. They further asserted that on day of examination that is 12.04.2004 as per university rules the complainant was not eligible for taking the exam. The admission of the complainant  was13 days late.  The letter dated 08.04.2004  to this effect was given to the complainant.  They denied all other allegations and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

The opposite parties no.6 and 7 also appeared and filed reply raising preliminary objections that the complainant is a student and as per provisions of the C.P.A act he is not a consumer. They asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. They were not involved in   admission process and administrative decisions. The entrance examination is conducted by AIMSand  after counseling institutes or colleges are allotted as per ranking and option of the student. The complaint is vexatious and malafide and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  On meritsthey admitted that thecomplainant qualified the exams conducted by AIMS. He was allotted vallabhbhaichest institutein DTCD and he took admission on 15.07.2002. Whereas the course had already commenced with effect from 02.07.2002. The complainant as per norms has not completed the course term. They once again prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

            The complainant filed rejoinder to the replies of Opposite Parties. Wherein he reiterated his stand taken in complaint and controverted the stand taken by the opposite party.  

When the parties were asked to lead evidence by way of affidavits, the complainant in support of his case filed affidavit dated 28.11.2006.Wherein he reiterated the facts of the complaint. The complainant in support of his case relied upon photo copies of letters dated 24.05.2004, 11.05.2004,08.07.2004,22.07.2004, 16.08.2004  and 02.09.2004, admission ticket and legal notice dated 31.01.2006.

The oopposite party no.1, 3 to 5 and 8 filed affidavit of Shri CJ Malhotra Assistant registrar dated 04.06.2007. Wherein he asserted the stand taken in the reply and once again prayed for dismissal of the complaint. They relied upon Annexure-1 “Bulletin of information”.The oopposite parties no.6 and 7 filed affidavit of Dr V.K. Vijayan Director dated04.07.2007.Wherein he asserted the stand taken in their reply and once again prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Written arguments are also filed by the complainant.

The complaint is lingering for advancing final arguments since 12.11.2013 for almost three and half years. But none is appearing on behalf of parties since then. Therefore, we proceed to deicide the complaint on merits.

We have gone through the complaint, replies, affidavits of parties and  material on record carefully and thoroughly. 

We are of the opinion that the main controversy/ issue is “whether ShriManoj Singhania the complainant is a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and the opposite partiesare service providers”?

These issues have been dealt in detail by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case reported as MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY VS SURJEET KAUR 2010 (11)Supreme Court Cases 159. Wherein it is held that education is not a commodity. The educational institutions are not service providers. Therefore, the students are not consumers. Similar view is taken by another bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in special leave petition no.22532/12 titled P.T.KOSHY& ANR VS ELLEN CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS decided on 9.8.12.  Similar view is taken by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition no. 1684/2009 titled as REGISTRAR ,GGS INDERAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY VS MISS TANVI decided on 29.1.2015 ,in Revision Petition No. 4335/14 titled as MayankTiwarivsFiitjeedecided on 8.12.14, in Revision Petition No. 3365/2006 titled FIITJEE VS DR.(MRS) MINATHI RATH, inRevision Petition No. 1805/2007 titled FITJEE VS B.B.POPLI, Revision Petition No. 3496/2006 P.T.Educationvs Dr MINATHI and in Revision Petition No. 2660/2007  all decided on 14.11.11 by common order.Similar view is also taken by Hon’bleState Commission of Chandigarh in Appeal no. 244/2014 titled M/s fiitjee ltd.vsMayankTiwari decided on 23.9.14.

Similar are the facts of the present case .The complainant  took admission with opposite parties educational Institutionsfor pursuing two years P.G. Diploma in T.B. and Chest Diseases on payment of requisite fee.  The opposite partiesare imparting education. Therefore as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commission of Chandigarh consistently education is not a commodity and the opposite parties are not service providers and the  complainant is not a consumer under the  Consumer Protection Act.

 

 

Therefore, complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act-1986. Resultantly  the complaint is dismissed.

Order pronounced on :20.05.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.

• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                          (R.S.  BAGRI)

MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT