RESERVED
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P., Lucknow.
Complaint Case No.80 of 2009
1- Dr. Pradnya Prakash Pote aged about 30 years,
W/o Dr. Ritesh Kumar
2- Dr. Ritesh Kumar aged about 36 years,
S/o Sri S.C. Srivastava both are resident of
MIG-2, Moti Jheel Colony, Lucknow.…Complainants.
Versus
1- University of Lucknow through its Registrar,
Hanuman Setu Road, Opp. Kolvin Talukedar
College, Lucknow.
2- Chief Coordinator (Admissions),
University of Lucknow (through Opp. Party No.1)
Hanuman Setu Road, Opp. Kolvin Talukedar
College, Lucknow. …Opp. Parties.
Present:
Hon'ble Mr. A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.
Hon'ble Mrs. Bal Kumari, Member.
Mr. Sanjeev Bahadur Srivastava for the complainants.
None for the OPs.
Date 11.9.2015
JUDGMENT
Mr. A.K. Bose, Member:- The complainants Dr. Pradnya Prakash Pote and Dr. Ritesh Kumar both residents of MIG-2, Moti Jheel Colony, Lucknow have preferred the instant complaint against the University of Lucknow through its Registrar and Chief Coordinator (Admissions), University of Lucknow under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer that the OPs, named above be directed "to give final and complete admission to the complainants". In addition to this, it has also been
(2)
prayed that a sum of Rs.20,30,000.00 be awarded to them with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% as compensation and cost of litigation.
From perusal of the records, it transpires that the complainants are qualified doctors having BDS Degree which they obtained from University of Mumbai in October, 1998. They served as Dental Surgeons in various Medical Institutions. In the meantime, they also started their own private clinic. From perusal of the complaint, it further transpires that the complainants applied for admission in University of Lucknow in M.A. (Community Medicines and Public Health) in the year 2009. The merit-list for admission was declared on 30.7.2009 and the names of the complainants appeared at Sl. No.56 and 59 in the list of eligible candidates belonging to other universities. Consequently, they reached the University on 1st August, 2009 for the purpose of counselling. However, counselling did not take place on that date, and they were asked to come on the next date. On the next date, they were informed that the admissions were over. They failed to get admission in M.A. (Community Medicines and Public Health). Feeling aggrieved by this alleged remiss and deficiency in service, the complainants filed complaint case no.80 of 2009 for redressal of their grievances.
Heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellants Sri Sanjeev Bahadur Srivastava on the point of admission and perused the records in the light of the same. There is no denial of the factum that the matter relates to admission in M.A.
(3)
(Community Medicines and Public Health) in the University of Lucknow. It is a settled law that the matters relating to educational Institutions are out side the purview of the Consumer Fora. It has further been held in Bihar School Examination Board vs. Suresh Prasad Singh, IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC) and Addl. Joint Secretary/Commissioner of Government Examinations vs. V. Srinivasulu and Anr., 2011(1) CPR 124 (NC) that the status of educational Institutions are not Service Providers vis-à-vis students who can not be treated as Consumers. Besides this, the elements of Consumer and Service Provider relationship lacking in the instant complaint case. Therefore, in view of the rulings laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the National Commission, we are of the considered view that this Commission has no inherent jurisdiction to deal with the matters relating to educational Institutions. The complainants did not achieve the status of consumers by merely applying for admission in the University. Consequently, the complaint, being meritless, is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
ORDER
The complaint, being meritless, is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. Copy of this judgment be given to the parties, in accordance with rules.
(A.K. Bose) (Bal Kumari)
Member Member
Jafri PA II
Court No.4
