State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ashwani Prabhakar vs Dr. Rajneesh Arora, on 13 May, 2014
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1632 of 2012
Date of institution: 13.12.2012
Date of Decision: 13.5.2014
Ashwani Prabhakar father of Vashu Prabhakar, # 2, Gali No. 7-A, Pawan
Nagar, Batala Road, Amritsar.
.....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Dr. Rajneesh Arora, Vice Chancellor, Punjab Technical
University, Jalandhar.
2. Er. H.S. Bains, Registrar, Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar.
.....Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order dated
25.10.2012 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Mukand Gupta, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : None.
For respondent No.2 : Ex.-parte
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as "the complainant") has filed the present appeal against the order dated 25.10.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar(hereinafter referred as "the District Forum") in consumer complaint No.206 dated 18.4.2012 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed being time barred.
2. The complaint was filed by the complainant against the respondents/opposite parties(hereinafter referred as 'opposite 2 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1632 OF 2012 parties') on the allegations that his son Vashu Prabhakar cleared the CET-2006 examination vide rank No. 00175 and took the admission in the 1st year of Bachelor of Technology. As per Brouchure, he had deposited Rs. 10,000/- vide D.D. No. 350050 on 26.6.2006 at the time of counselling with the Registrar, Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, out of which Rs. 2500/- had been retained by Punjab Technical University as counselling fee and balance of Rs. 7500/- was adjustable in the Tuition Fee of the 2nd semester. The son of the complainant had allotted seat in the course of B-Tech (Computer Engg.) at Guru Nanak Dev University Campus, Amritsar and he had deposited the fee of Rs. 42,505. In the 2nd semester he had changed his course. The PTU has to refund the remaining charges of Rs. 7500/- themselves to Guru Nanak Dev University Campus, Amritsar out of Rs. 10,000/- for adjustment of the same in the tuition fee of 2nd semester. Inspite of issuing letters by the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar to PTU to send Rs. 7500/- they did not refund the amount. The complainant sought information under RTI regarding the refund of the amount but of no use. Hence, the complaint for directing the Ops to refund Rs. 7500/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and also awarded cost of litigation.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties, who filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint was time barred; the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands; the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint, the District Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint and that the complainant does not fall within the definition of 3 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1632 OF 2012 consumer as per the settled law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On merits, it was admitted that the son of the complainant had cleared the CET-2006 examination vide rank No. 00175 and deposited Rs. 10,000/- with them. It was denied that they received any communication from the complainant or from Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar. It was pleaded that there was no deficiency in services on their part. All other allegations were denied and dismissal of the complaint was prayed for.
4. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/A, copy of brochure Ex. C-1, identity check proforma Ex. C-2, fee deposit receipt Ex. C-3, C- 6, , General Category list Ex. C-4, condition of brochure Ex. C-5, certificate Ex. C-7, letter dt. 26.12.08 Ex. C-8, postal receipts Ex. C-9, letter dt. 27.7.09 Ex. C-10, postal receipts Ex. C-11, letter Ex. C-12, postal receipts Ex. C-13, letter of GNDU Ex. C-14, 15, letter of PTU Ex. C-16, rules Ex. C-17, letter of PTU Ex. C-18, letter of PTU, Jalandhar Ex. C-19, order of State Information Commission, Punjab Ex. C-20, rules Ex. C-21. On the other hand, the opposite parties had tendered into evidence affidavit of Er. H. S. Bains, Registrar Ex. OP- 1/A, identity check proforma Ex. OP-1, rules Ex O-2, letter dt. 18.7.11 Ex. O-3, letter of PTU Ex. OP-4.
6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written statement filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order 4 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1632 OF 2012 observed that the complainant had deposited the fee in the year 2006 whereas the complaint was filed in the year 2012 that after more than 5½ years as such, the complaint was time barred and the same was dismissed.
7. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
8. In the grounds of appeal, it has been contended that the learned District Forum had committed error while deciding the case as the complainant had deposited Rs. 10,000/- which the PTU, Jalandhar and it was the duty of the PTU, Jalandhar to refund Rs. 7500/- to Guru Nanak Dev University Campus, Amritsar directly but they failed to refund that amount to the GNDU, Amritsar and retained the whole amount with them and the complainant when came to know about this fact, he had filed the complaint and thereafter appeal before the State Information Commission but the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 21.7.2011 by ordering that the appellant can approach to the appropriate Court with regard to the refund/adjustment of the tuition fee. Only thereafter the complainant had filed the complaint before the District Forum on 18.4.2012, which is within limitation.
9. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 10,000/- with the Ops on 26.6.2006. The only dispute is that the complainant had filed the complaint in the year 2012 whereas the payment was deposited in the year 2006 and as per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection 5 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1632 OF 2012 Act, 1986 the period of limitation is two years from the date of cause of action. The proceedings before the State Information Commission and before this Act are distinct for a different relief before both the Forums. The limitation period was not ordered to be excluded by the Commissioner, R.T.I.. When the complaint was filed before the District Forum, no application under Section 24A(2) was given by the complainant to exempt/condone the delay in filing the appeal, therefore, certainly, the complaint filed by the complainant was barred by limitation.
10. Even otherwise it is a case of refund of fee and there are latest judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court that education matters including refund of fee is not the service rendering by the Universities/Boards, rather, they perform the statutory duties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur", 2010(2) CPC 696 S.C.; "Bihar School Examination Board versus Suresh Prasad Sinha" 2010 (1) CLT 255 (SC) as well as "P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors." 2012(3) C.P.C. 615 (S.C.) held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions imparting education are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."
11. In view of these judgments, the complainant does not come within the definition of the 'consumer', therefore, in any circumstances, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. 6 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1632 OF 2012 It was rightly dismissed by the learned District Forum. The order so passed by the learned District Forum is hereby affirmed.
12. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
13. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 7.5.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Presiding Judicial Member
May 13, 2014. (Harcharan Singh Guram)
as Member