Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/73/2015

Neeraj Wadhawan S/o Devinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vinayaka Mission University - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Saini

22 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                       Complaint No. 73  of 2015.

                                                                                       Date of institution: 05.03.2015.

                                                                                       Date of decision: 22.09.2016.

Neeraj Wadhawan aged about 35 years son of Sh. Devinder Kumar, Resident of House No. 761, Mahavir Colony, Gali Malhotra Wali, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                           …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Vinayaka Missions University NH-47, Sankari Main Road, Ariyanoor Salem-636308, Temil Nadu.
2. WEB Services Regd.  Office 14, Kamani Chowk, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Incharge.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         …Respondents.

 

Before:             SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Amit Saini, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               Respondents already ex-parte.          

                                       

ORDER

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that the respondents( hereinafter referred as Ops) be directed to issue degree of Bachelor of Arts(hereinafter referred as B.A.) to the complainant immediately and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant took admission in B.A. degree course with the Op No.1 i.e. Vinayaka Missions University, Tamil Nadu through OP No.2 under roll No. 204394 and had passed out the same. The OP No.1 issued mark sheet bearing serial No. 27571 dated 28.05.2008 but failed to issue degree of the same to the complainant. The complainant made so many requests to the OPs to send the same but all in vain. The complainant is doing the job in Kotak Life Insurance Jagadhri where the abovesaid company has demanded the original degree but due to non-supply of the degree by the Ops, the complainant is facing hardship. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice OPs failed to appear despite service, hence they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24.04.2015.

4.                     In support of case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of provisional certificate issued by OPs as Annexure C-1 and C-2, Photo copy of mark sheet issued by Op No.1 as Annexure C-3 and C-4, Photo copy of demand draft as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of courier receipt as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of salary slip as Annexure C-7 to C-9, copy of legal notice as Annexure C-10 and postal receipt as Annexure C-11 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

6.                     The only grievances of the complainant is that he has passed out his B.A. from the institution of OP No.1 who issued his mark sheet under the roll No. 204394 dated 28.05.2008 but the OP No.1 has yet not delivered the degree of B.A. From the perusal of the contents of the complaint, it is clearly evident that complainant had passed out his graduation in the year May, 2008 but the present complaint has been filed on 05.03.2015 i.e. after a period of about 7 years which is hopelessly time barred.  Moreover, as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India case titled as Bihar School Examination Board Versus Suresh Parshad Sinha, 2009 CTJ page 1057, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the function of an Education Board is to conduct examination. This statutory function involves holding examinations, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates. It is not possible to divide this function as partly statutory and partly administrative. The School Board is not a service provider and the student who takes an examination conducted by it is not a consumer and consequently, his complaint under the Consumer Protection Act will not be maintainable against it.

7.                     In view of the aforesaid discussion and law referred above, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is hopelessly time barred as well as not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced: 22.09.2016.        

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

                                                                                     

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.