Haryana

Jind

244/12

Suman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vardey Devi College Of Eduction - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Satish Mudgil

11 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.

Complaint No. 244 of 2012

Date of Institution: 13.8.2012

Date of final order: 11.3.2015

 

Suman w/o Sh. Ashok Mudgil r/o Rambir colony, Jind, Tehsil and Distridct Jind.

….Complainant.

Versus

1. The Principal Vardey Devi College of Education Brahmanwas,

Tehsil Julana, District Jind.

2. Managing Director Vardey Devi College of Education

Brahmanwas, Tehsil Julana, District Jind.

…..Opposite parties.

Complaint under section 12 of

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Before: Sh. Hari Singh Khokhar, President.

Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.

 

Present: Sh. Satish Mudgil, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Ashwani Sharma, Adv. for opposite Parties.

 

ORDER:

The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had passed D.Ed (Part-II) final examination in June, 2010 under Roll No.1128080 and B.Ed. examination in July, 2011 under Roll No.0242014 from Vardey Devi College of Education, Brahmanwas, Tehsil Julana, District Jind. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- for library security deposit @ 5,000/- for each course. The above said amount of Rs.10,000/- is right of complainant to refund the same after the completion of courses but the opposite parties did not refund the said amount till today. The complainant served a legal notice dated 7.4.2012 through her counsel Sh. Satish

Suman Vs. Principal Vardey Devi etc.

…2…

Kumar Mudgil Adv. upon the opposite parties but all in vain. The complainant awarded no dues certificate after depositing all the books of library. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to refund the library security deposit of Rs.10,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.a. as well as to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant.

2. Upon notice, the opposite parties have put in appearance and filed the written reply stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint; the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum, the complaint is false and frivolous and the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts. On merits, it is contended that the complainant has deposited Rs.5,000/- as library security for D.Ed course and Rs.5,000/- for B. Ed. Course but the complainant did not return/deposit the books and notes to the opposite parties. As such the opposite parties issued notice to the complainant to return back the books and other reading material taken by her but the complainant failed to return the same. The complainant is not entitled for any amount from the opposite parties. All the other allegations have been denied by the opposite parties. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Dismissal of complaint with compensatory costs is prayed for.

3. In evidence, the complainant has produced her own affidavit Ex. C-1, affidavit of Raju Ex. C-2, affidavit of Ravinder Kumar Ex. C-3, affidavit of Dhoop Singh Ex. C-4, affidavit of Seema Rani Ex. C-5, affidavit of Sushma Ex. C-6,

Suman Vs. Principal Vardey Devi etc.

…3…

affidavit of Neelam Ex. C-7, affidavit of Salochna Ex. C-8, affidavit of Krishna Ex. C-9, affidavit of Meena Sharma Ex. C-10, affidavit of Shanti Lata Ex. C-11,

affidavit of Kavita Ex. C-12, cash receipts Ex. C-13 to C-15, copy of legal notice Ex. C-16 and postal receipt Ex. C-17 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced the affidavit of S.P. Sharma, Principal Ex. OP-1 and closed the evidence.

4. We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. Ld. Counsel for complainant has averred that the complainant took admission for D.Ed. in Vardey Devi College of Education Brahmanwas and passed the final examination in June, 2010. Subsequently, she took admission in the same above mentioned college for B.Ed and passed the final examination in July, 2011. For these above courses a sum of Rs.5,000/- for each course was deposited as library security. The complainant has also obtained no due certificate after depositing all the books of library but the opposite parties did not release the library security of Rs.10,000/- on the false ground. The complainant served a legal notice dated 7.4.2012 through her counsel upon the opposite parties but all in vain. Deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties is alleged.

5. On the other hand, the opposite parties have averred that the complainant had deposited Rs.5,000/- as library security for D.Ed. and Rs.5,000/- for B.Ed. courses but the complainant did not return back the books and notes. The opposite parties issued notice to the complainant to return back the books and other reading material taken by her but the complainant failed to return the same. All the other allegations have been denied by the opposite parties.

6. In case P T Koshy and another Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust and others 2012 (3) CPC 615 (S.C). The Hon’ble Apex court has categorically held as under:-

In view of the judgment of this court in Maharashi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (2) SSC 195 held that the education is not commodity and educational institions are not providing any service. Therefore, in the matter of

Suman Vs. Principal Vardey Devi etc.

…4…

admission fee etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency in service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Fora in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

7. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and to try this complaint. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed. However, the complainant shall have liberty to seek her grievances before the proper Forum or Civil Court, as per law. The complainant can seek help for condonation of delay in accordance with law laid in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute 1995 (3) SSC 583. Parties will bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.

Announced on: 11.3.2015

President,

Member District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind

 

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

Suman Vs. Principal Vardey Devi etc.

 

Present: Sh. Satish Mudgil, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Ashwani Sharma, Adv. for opposite Parties.

 

Arguments heard. To come up on 11.3.2015 for orders.

President,

Member DCDRF, Jind

9.3.2015

 

Present: Sh. Satish Mudgil, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Ashwani Sharma, Adv. for opposite Parties.

 

Order announced, vide our separate order of even date. The complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record room.

President,

Member DCDRF, Jind

11.3.2015