IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 515-2010 DATED 06.07.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Dr.B.S.Narakesari, No.112, Srimatharavinda Nilaya, 3rd Cross, 3rd Main, H Block, Ramakrishnanagar, <br /> Mysore-570022.<br /> <br /> (INPERSON)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Vice-chancellor, <br /> University of Mysroe, <br /> Crawford Hall, Mysore-570005.<br /> <br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 29.06.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : -<br /> Date of order : 06.07.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : -<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Considering the facts alleged in the complaint, we heard the complainant regarding admissibility and maintainability of the complaint and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 2. Now, we have to consider, whether the complaint is admissible and maintainable?<br /> <br /> 3. Our finding on the above point is in negative, for the following reasons.<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 4. The grievance of the complainant is that, his daughter had registered for Ph.D with opposite party University and the registration has been cancelled, keeping the complainant and the guide in dark. Further, it is alleged, the thesis submitted by the daughter of the complainant as reported was evaluated and two persons have duly accepted and recommended for awarding the degree, whereas two others have recommended to reject. Hence, it is submitted, it is justifiable to get the thesis evaluated by one or two more persons.<br /> <br /> 5. Considering the facts and the material on record, we have to decide, whether the complainant is a “consumer” and any “service” was provided by the opposite party. Under section 2 (d), definition of consumer is provided to the effect that, <br /> “(i) Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose, or<br /> (ii) (hires or avails of) any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person (but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose);<br /> (Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, “Commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;).”<br /> <br /> 6. Then, under section 2(o), service is defined as <br /> “service means service of any description which is made available to potential (users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of) facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, (housing construction), entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of persona service.”<br /> <br /> 7. Considering the definitions of ‘Consumer’ and ‘service’, we are of the considered opinion that, the complainant is not a consumer and the opposite party has not undertaken to provide any service to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 8. Even according to the complainant, two examiners have accepted the thesis and the other two have rejected. Under the provisions of C.P.Act, considering the facts of the case on record, we are of the opinion that, this Forum has no power to direct the opposite party-Vice-chancellor of the University to re-evaluate the thesis.<br /> <br /> 9. Further more, aggrieved person who had submitted thesis has not filed complaint, but the complaint is filed by her father.<br /> <br /> 10. For the reasons noted above, we are of the opinion that, the complaint is not maintainable and it cannot be admitted. Accordingly, we pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to the complainant according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 6th July 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />