IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 140/2019 (filed on 20/08/2019)
Petitioner : Adv. P.P. Philip,
Pazhempalli House,
Peruva P.O. Pin – 686 610
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Vice Chancellor,
` M.G. University.
2) Head of the Department,
Life Long Learning and Extention,
M.G. University,
Athirampuzha, Kottayam.
(For Op 1 and 2, Adv. V.K. Sathyavan Nair
and Adv. Saji S. Nair)
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
The complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The complainant had attended and passed the certificate course of 6 months in Counselling conducted by Department of Life Long Learning and Extension of Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam in 2012. At the time of receipt of certification itself, the complainant realized that the wordings of the certificate was not correct. Though the complainant returned the certificate on the same day itself upon the assurances given by the university authorities and other officials, he received it again. They assured to issue a corrected certificate later. In 2018, when he happened to see a certificate issued by the university to another person for the same course, seeing that the alleged mistake was still there, the complainant tried to agitate the matter again, but the university authorities did not take any steps to rectify the mistake. So on 26-06-2019, the complainant sent a registered notice to the Vice Chancellor of the university but no action was taken. The said certificate does not contain the necessary content which should be there in a certificate to be given to a person who have passed a particular course but the impugned certificate wordings only mean that a particular person has attained entry to the said course. The complainant paid Rs.3,100/- to the university as fee. The complainant claims compensation for the deficiency of service committed by the University by issuing a defective certificate to him.
Upon notice, the opposite parties entrusted appearance and filed a joint version.
The opposite parties contented that the complainant has failed to point out the mistake in the certificate and there is no mistake in the certificate issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act nor the opposite parties are service providers. The complaint is not maintainable and barred by limitation. In this case, the certificate was issued by the opposite party as usual in accordance with the University Laws and Practice. The allegation that when the certificate was issued he pointed out a mistake and returned it and on the assurance of the authorities he had again taken the certificate back is totally false. No such occasion had occurred. Similarly worded certificate are being issued from the very inception of the course by the University and it cannot be changed at the whims and fancies of the complainant and nobody else have any grievance about the terminology of the certificate. The complainant is wilfully misconstructing the contents of the certificate of the University. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Complainant filed proof affidavit along with Ext.A1 to A7. A3 and A5 marked as subject to proof. Opposite party has no evidence.
On perusal of complaint, version and evidence on record, we would like to frame the following issues.
- Whether the complaint has established deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so, what are the reliefs?
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider issues no.1 and 2 together.
Issue Nos. 1 and 2
The complaint is filed for compensation against the deficiency of service committed by the opposite parties in not rectifying the mistake pointed out by the complainant. According to the opposite parties, there is no such mistakes as alleged in the certificate.
The complainant claims that as he has paid a fee of Rs.3,100/- to the opposite parties, he is a consumer.
Section 2 (d) (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 says that “consumer” means any person who 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 used or 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.
Section 2 (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 says “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;
Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 says “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 personal service.
In Manu Solanki Vs. Vinayaka Mission University, Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held
“51. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport, etc. except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”
Here in the case in hand, the complainant though put forward the allegation that the certificate issued by the opposite parties was defective he has failed to establish the mistakes with any cogent evidence.
So in the light of the above discussed decision, no dispute between an educational institution and students comes under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and hence we dismissed this complaint.
Pronounced in the Open Court on this the 12th day of July, 2021.
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1- Copy of certificate issued in March 2013.
A2 – Copy of Degree Certificate issued by Kerala University
A3- A newspaper report dtd.25-01-2020
A4 – Copy of course notification for 17th December 2019 admissions.
A5- Copy of certificate issued in April 2019
A6- Copy of petition submitted on 27-06-19 to the University directly
A7-Copy of letter dtd.17-01-2020 from Kerala Raj Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
