ORDER (ORAL) Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by the Complainant, is to the order dated 02.09.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar at Patna (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.204 of 2013. By the impugned order, the State Commission has overturned the order dated 07.08.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Samastipur (for short “the District Forum’) in Complaint Case -2- No.89 of 2004 and has dismissed the Complaint filed by the Petitioner. In the first place, while allowing the Complaint filed by the Petitioner, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent herein, namely, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga, for delay in issuing the original Graduation Certificate as well as computerized mark sheets to the Petitioner, the District Forum had directed the Respondent University to pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹1,00,000/- for not issuing the said Certificates on time; ₹20,000/- as compensation for the mental and physical harassment; ₹5,000/- as expenditure and ₹2,000/- as litigation costs – totaling ₹1,27,000/-. Reversing the said directions, the State Commission has held that apart from the fact that there was no inordinate delay on the part of the University in issuing the afore-noted Certificates, even otherwise in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC 483, since the University was not rendering any services to the Petitioner, as defined in the Act, the Complaint itself was not maintainable. 2. Questioning the legality of the said order, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has strenuously urged that the State Commission has committed material irregularity both in condoning an inordinate delay of over 200 days in filing of the Appeal by the Respondents, and in reaching the conclusion that there was no inordinate delay on the part of the Respondent University in issuing the said Certificates. It is asserted that although, the original Graduation Certificate was lying ready with the Respondents on 31.03.2000, yet the same was issued to the Petitioner only on 28.05.2002, with the result that he lost a life time opportunity to go on a promotional foreign deputation to Singapore. 3. Having perused the Application filed by the Respondents seeking condonation of the afore-noted inordinate delay, I am inclined to agree -3- with the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the explanation furnished for the stated delay did not make out a sufficient cause and the Application deserved to be dismissed. Nevertheless, in the light of the authoritative pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, (2010), 11, SCC, 159, wherein it has been held that a student is neither a consumer nor the University is rendering any services to him, falling within the ambit of Sections 2(1)(o) and 2(1)(d) of the Act respectively, and hence, a Complaint under the Act against the University is not maintainable, no fault can be found with the view expressed by the State Commission, while reversing the order passed by the District Forum and dismissing the Complaint. 4. Resultantly, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. |
