State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Principal, Government Industrial ... vs Gaurav Suyal on 18 October, 2022
Appeal No. Principal, 18.10.2022
111 of 2017 Government Industrial Training Institute and Anr.
& Vs.
Appeal No. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors.
146 of 2017 AND
Doon Ghati College of Professional Education
Vs.
Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
Date of Institution: 02.08.2017
Date of final hearing: 14.10.2022
Date of Pronouncement: 18.10.2022
First Appeal No. 111 / 2017
1. Principal.
Government Industrial Training Institute,
Doiwala, Dehradun
2. Government Industrial Training Institute
Doiwala, Dehradun
(Through: Sh. Ashok Dimri, A.D.G.C. (Civil), Advocate)
.....Appellants
VERSUS
1. Sh. Gaurav Suyal S/o Sh. Siddhanand Suyal
R/o Village Saud, P.O. Chelusain, District Pauri Garhwal
Current Add: 63 Well Road, Clementown, Dehradun
(Through: Sh. Sudesh Uniyal, Advocate)
.....Respondent No. 1
2. I.M.C. Government Industrial Training Institute,
Doiwala, Dehradun
(Through: Sh. Ashok Dimri, A.D.G.C. (Civil), Advocate)
.....Respondent No. 2
3. Doon Ghati College of Professional Education,
Doiwala, Dehradun
(Through: Sh. Anurag Gupta, Advocate)
.....Respondent No. 3
AND
1
Appeal No. Principal, 18.10.2022
111 of 2017 Government Industrial Training Institute and Anr.
& Vs.
Appeal No. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors.
146 of 2017 AND
Doon Ghati College of Professional Education
Vs.
Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors.
Date of Institution: 14.10.2022
Date of final hearing: 14.10.2022
Date of Pronouncement: 18.10.2022
First Appeal No. 146 / 2017
Doon Ghati College of Professional Education,
Doiwala, Dehradun
(Through: Sh. Anurag Gupta, Advocate)
.....Appellant
VERSUS
1. Sh. Gaurav Suyal S/o Sh. Siddhanand Suyal
R/o Village Saud, P.O. Chelusain, Pauri Garhwal
Current Add: 63 Well Road, Claimen Town, Dehradun
(Through: Sh. Sudesh Uniyal, Advocate)
.....Respondent No. 1
2. Government Industrial Training Institute
Doiwala, Dehradun
3. Principal.
Government Industrial Training Institute,
Doiwala, Dehradun
4. I.M.C. Government Industrial Training Institute,
Doiwala, Dehradun
(Through: Sh. Ashok Dimri, A.D.G.C. (Civil), Advocate)
.....Respondent Nos. 2 to 4
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II
Mr. B.S. Manral, Member
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II):
2 Appeal No. Principal, 18.10.2022
111 of 2017 Government Industrial Training Institute and Anr.
& Vs.
Appeal No. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors.
146 of 2017 AND
Doon Ghati College of Professional Education Vs. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors.
The present appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have been directed against the judgment and order dated 29.05.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 169 of 2013 styled as Sh. Gaurav Suyal Vs. Government Industrial Training Institute, Doiwala and Ors., wherein and whereby the District Commission has allowed the consumer complaint.
2. The facts giving rise to the appeals in hand, in brief, are as such that the complainant - Sh. Gaurav Suyal has passed the two years course of Dental Lab Technician from Government Industrial Training Institute, Doiwala, Dehradun; at the time of admission, the complainant was assured that the above mentioned institute is recognized by the Uttarakhand Government and State Training Board. The complainant was also assured at the time of admission from the Principle of Government Industrial Training Institute, Doiwala that the above mentioned course is also recognized by the Central Training Board, Government of India and after completion of the above two years course, the Government Industrial Training Institute has issued a certificate to this effect to the complainant for the purpose to get proper appointment in future. After completion of the above mentioned Dental Lab Technician course, the complainant has submitted his application for its registration before the Central Training Board wherefrom his application was rejected on the ground given below:-
"mRrjk[k.M MsUVy dkmafly dsoy Hkkjrh; nUr ifj'kn }kjk ekU;rk çkIr laLFkkuksa ls MsUVy gkbZftfuLV ,oa 3 Appeal No. Principal, 18.10.2022 111 of 2017 Government Industrial Training Institute and Anr.
& Vs.
Appeal No. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors.
146 of 2017 AND
Doon Ghati College of Professional Education Vs. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors.
MsUVy eSdsfud esa fMiyksek çkIr vH;fFkZ;ksa dk gh iathdj.k djrk gSA jktdh; vkS|ksfxd çf"k{k.k laLFkku] MksbZokyk }kjk lapkfyr MsUVy ySc VSDuhf"k;u dkslZ Hkkjrh; nUr ifj'kn }kjk ekU;rk çkIr dkslZ ugha gSA"
Thereby the complainant was falsely assured that the above course of Dental Lab Technician of two years is recognized by the Government Industrial Training Institute; the institute is not listening the complaint, hence he has filed the complaint before the District Commission for getting the relief as Rs. 40,000/- for the expenses incurred by the complainant in completing the course, Rs. 2,40,000/- rent and other expenses incurred during the course and Rs. 2,60,000/- for not getting employment on account of course not recognized in the Government Industrial Training Institute alongwith costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
3. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have submitted their written statement in complaint case, whereas the opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 did not appear before the District Commission, hence, the order of ex-parte proceeding against them was passed.
4. In the written statement, it is averred that the opposite party No. 2 has conceded the payment of fees, but has further alleged that he has no connection or nexus with the relief desired in the complaint, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. After hearing both the parties and after taking into consideration the material available on record, learned District Forum / Commission passed 4 Appeal No. Principal, 18.10.2022 111 of 2017 Government Industrial Training Institute and Anr.
& Vs.
Appeal No. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors.
146 of 2017 AND
Doon Ghati College of Professional Education Vs. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors.
the impugned judgment and order dated 29.05.2017, hence it is held as under:-
"mijksDrkuqlkj ifjoknh }kjk ;ksftr ;g ifjokn foi{khx.k ds fo:) ¼la;qDr% ,oa i`Fkdr%½ Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA foi{khx.k dks vknsf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd oss ifjoknh dks vnk dh xbZ /kujkf"k vadu mupkyhl gtkj nks lkS :i;s] {kfriwfrZ Lo:i vadu ,d yk[k ipkl gtkj :i;s ,oa okn O;; dh en esa vadu nl gtkj :i;s dk Hkqxrku djsaA ;fn fufnZ'V vof/k esa Hkqxrku ugha fd;k tkrk gS rks ifjoknh mDr /kujkf"k ij fu.kZ; frfFk ls olwyh rd 7% okf'kZd C;kt Hkh çkIr djus dk ik= gksxkA"
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the appellants (opposite party Nos. 1 & 2) has preferred the appeal No. 111 of 2017, whereas another appeal No. 146 of 2017 has been preferred by the appellant (Doon Ghati College of Professional Education, Doiwala- opposite party No. 4) before this Commission.
7. In the appeal No. 111 of 2017, learned counsel for the appellants has averred that the learned lower Commission has committed a great mistake in accepting the complaint of the complainant, even after it has been time barred and has also overlooked the fact that the letter was issued by the office of the Director, Training Services, Uttarakhand in which it was clearly stated that the admitted trainees should be made aware that the examination of the said trade was to be completed under SCVT and the 5 Appeal No. Principal, 18.10.2022 111 of 2017 Government Industrial Training Institute and Anr.
& Vs. Appeal No. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors. 146 of 2017 AND
Doon Ghati College of Professional Education Vs. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors.
examination will be conducted and a certificate will be given by SCVT on passing the examination; no claim of SCVT certificate will be accepted for the above. Despite that the learned District Commission has passed the impugned judgment and order, which is a gross mistake. It is further averred that the District Commission has overlooked the fact that it was necessary to decide the full responsibility and liability against the essential and main parties, i.e. Doiwala College of Professional Education, Doiwala, Dehradun and IMC Government Industrial Training Institute, Doiwala, Dehradun who are the main partners, but instead of that liability has been decided jointly with the appellants department, which is against the law. It is also averred that the District Commission has ignored the fact that the mark-sheet and certificate of the Dental Lab Technician Professional, which is recognized by the SCTV, was given to the complainant and yet passed the impugned judgment and order against the appellants department, which is against the natural justice.
It is further averred that the sub-ordinate Forum ignored the fact that Doon Ghati College of Professional Education, Doiwala, Dehradun was selected under PPP (Public Private Partnership) by the Institute Management Committee, Industrial Training Institute, Doiwala, Dehradun therefore, the complaint was required to be presented decided against the respondent No. 3, but despite that the learned sub-ordinate Forum passed the impugned judgment and order, which is a great mistake. Neither in the admission form, nor in its prospectus, the appellants department has given any guarantee of appointment in service; the appellants department has given the mark-sheet and certificate in respect of the course completed by the complainant, but despite that the learned Forum passed the impugned judgment and order, which is a great mistake. It is also submitted that the 6 Appeal No. Principal, 18.10.2022 111 of 2017 Government Industrial Training Institute and Anr.
& Vs.
Appeal No. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors.
146 of 2017 AND
Doon Ghati College of Professional Education Vs. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors.
complainant does not fall under the category of consumer and if the complainant has suffered any damage then he can file a suit in the Hon'ble Civil Court for his compensation because the suit does not come under the category of consumer.
8. In the appeal No. 146 of 2017 filed by the appellant - Doon Ghati College of Professional Education, Doiwala, Dehradun, learned counsel for the appellant has averred that due service had not been effected upon the appellant. Role of the appellant in the entire matter had not been pleaded. Learned Forum below committed a gross illegality and illegality in making the award against the appellant without recording any finding with regard to the complainant being the consumer of the appellant. No amount whatsoever had been paid to the appellant by the consumer. Learned Forum below has failed to appreciate that the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 were established by the State. They had been funded by the State. Without the State being party to the complaint, no effective adjudication could have been made. The finding of the learned Forum below that in view of the information given by the DG Medical Health, Dehradun, the course is not recognized by the State of Uttarakhand is perverse. There was nothing on record to show that the course in question is not recognized by the State Government. The finding of the learned Forum below that students have been misguided in issuing the certificates is perverse. Learned Forum below has failed to appreciate that the certificate has been issued by the State Council for Vocational Training under the signatures of Secretary. Recognition was mentioned with State Council for Vocational Training (SCVT). The finding of Learned Forum below that unfair trade practice of the appellant is proved on record is perverse.
7Appeal No. Principal, 18.10.2022 111 of 2017 Government Industrial Training Institute and Anr.
& Vs.
Appeal No. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors.
146 of 2017 AND
Doon Ghati College of Professional Education Vs. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors.
9. Both the appeals have arisen from the same judgment, hence, in the interest of justice, the above mentioned appeals are being decided together for the convenience.
10. We have heard learned counsel Sh. Ashok Dimri, A.D.G.C. (Civil), learned counsel Sh. Anurag Gupta and learned counsel Sh. Sudesh Uniyal as well as perused the material available on record.
11. The question before us as to whether the complainant is a consumer or not, whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant(s) (opposite parties of the consumer case) in both the appeals.
12. The first and foremost issue to be decided in the present appeal is whether the complainant falls under the definition of "consumer", as defined under the Act and whether the appellant- Institute can be termed to be a "service provider". In this regard, it is relevant to state here that in the written statement filed by the appellants before the District Commission, it was specifically pleaded that the complainant does not come within the definition of "consumer". The perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by learned District Commission shows that on the said issue, case law of Hon'ble National Commission was cited on behalf of the appellants, but the same was not relied upon by learned District Commission. Reliance was placed by learned District Commission upon the judgment and order dated 08.12.2016 passed by Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 3288 of 2016; Mody University of Sciences and Technology and another Vs. Megha Gupta. In the said case, the complainant had decided to withdraw from the University after she had been admitted to the 8 Appeal No. Principal, 18.10.2022 111 of 2017 Government Industrial Training Institute and Anr.
& Vs. Appeal No. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors. 146 of 2017 AND
Doon Ghati College of Professional Education Vs. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors.
course and had, in fact, been called for counselling, hence it was submitted on behalf of the University that she was not entitled to refund of the amount deposited by her. It was held by Hon'ble National Commission that the instant case has to be decided in the light of guidelines issued by University Grants Commission and the order passed by the Fora below so far as question of refund of fee was concerned, was upheld. But, it is noteworthy that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha reported in IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC), has laid down that Bihar School Examination Board does not offer "service" to any candidate, nor does any student hires or avails of any "service" from the Board for a consideration. Paragraph No. 10 of the said decision is reproduced below:
"10. The Board is a statutory authority established under the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952. The function of the Board is to conduct school examinations. This statutory function involves holding periodical examinations, evaluating the answer scripts, declaring the results and issuing certificates. The process of holding examinations, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function. It is not possible to divide this function as partly statutory and partly administrative. When the Examination Board conducts an examination in discharge of its statutory function, it does not offer its "services" to 9 Appeal No. Principal, 18.10.2022 111 of 2017 Government Industrial Training Institute and Anr.
& Vs. Appeal No. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors. 146 of 2017 AND
Doon Ghati College of Professional Education Vs. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors.
any candidate. Nor does a student who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, hires or avails of any service from the Board for a consideration. On the other hand, a candidate who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, is a person who has undergone a course of study and who requests the Board to test him as to whether he has imbibed sufficient knowledge to be fit to be declared as having competence vis-vis other examinees. The process is not therefore availment of a service by a student, but participation in a general examination conducted by the Board to ascertain whether he is eligible and fit to be considered as having successfully completed the secondary education course. The examination fee paid by the student is not the consideration for availment of any service, but the charge paid for the privilege of participation in the examination."
13. Hon'ble National Commission in its judgment dated 17.12.2017 rendered in Revision Petition No. 3144 of 2016; Krishan Mohan Goyal Vs. St. Mary's Academy and another, has discussed the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur reported in (2010) 11 SCC 159, in which it has been laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court that a student is neither a consumer, nor the University is rendering any service, relying on the decision given in the case of Bihar 10 Appeal No. Principal, 18.10.2022 111 of 2017 Government Industrial Training Institute and Anr.
& Vs. Appeal No. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors. 146 of 2017 AND
Doon Ghati College of Professional Education Vs. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors.
School Examination Board (supra). Relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:
"The respondent as a student is neither a consumer nor is the appellant rendering any service. The claim of the respondent to award B.Ed. degree was almost in the nature of a relief praying for a direction to the appellant to act contrary to its own rules. The National Commission, in our opinion, with the utmost respect to the reasoning given therein did not take into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and thus, arrived at a wrong conclusion. The case decided by this Court in Bihar School Examination Board (supra) clearly lays down the law in this regard with which we find ourselves in full agreement with. Accordingly, the entire exercise of entertaining the complaint by the District Forum and the award of relief which has been approved by the National Commission do not conform to law and we, therefore, set aside the same."
14. Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 17802 of 2017; Anupama College of Engineering Vs. Gulshan Kumar and others, decided on 30.10.2017, has held that in view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University (supra), wherein this Court placing reliance on all 11 Appeal No. Principal, 18.10.2022 111 of 2017 Government Industrial Training Institute and Anr.
& Vs. Appeal No. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors. 146 of 2017 AND
Doon Ghati College of Professional Education Vs. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors.
earlier judgments, has categorically held that educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency in service and such matter cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
15. Hon'ble National Commission in its latest judgment rendered in the case of Director of Xavier Institute of Management & Entrepreneurship Kinfra Hi-Tech Park and others Vs. Sujay Ghose reported in III (2022) CPJ 6 (NC), has specifically held that the Educational Institute does not fall within purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as it is not rendering any services. While coming to the above conclusion, Hon'ble National Commission has relied upon a decision of Larger Bench of three Members of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Manu Solanki and others Vs. Vinayak Mission University and other connected cases reported in I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC), wherein the Larger Bench has held that educational matters do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.
16. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case as well as the law laid down in the case of Bihar School Examination Board (supra); Maharshi Dayanand University (supra); Anupama College of Engineering (supra) and Director of Xavier Institute of Management & Entrepreneurship Kinfra Hi-Tech Park and others (supra), it is crystal 12 Appeal No. Principal, 18.10.2022 111 of 2017 Government Industrial Training Institute and Anr.
& Vs. Appeal No. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors. 146 of 2017 AND
Doon Ghati College of Professional Education Vs. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors.
clear that the appellant No. 1 - Educational Institute is neither "service provider", nor the respondent - complainant being a student is a "consumer". Accordingly, we are of the view that the matter in question cannot be brought before the Consumer Fora.
17. In the light of the above cited case laws, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission suffers from material illegality, infirmity and the same is erroneous. Therefore, we inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment, hence the appeals deserve to be allowed; impugned judgment and order passed by learned District Commission is liable to be set aside.
18. Accordingly, the appeal No. 111 of 2017 and appeal No. 146 of 2017 are allowed. Impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission is set aside and the consumer complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
19. Statutory amount deposited, if any, by the appellant(s) be returned to the appellant(s).
20. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 /2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. The copy of this Order be sent to the District Commission concerned for record and necessary information.
21. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
13 Appeal No. Principal, 18.10.2022
111 of 2017 Government Industrial Training Institute and Anr.
& Vs.
Appeal No. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors.
146 of 2017 AND
Doon Ghati College of Professional Education Vs. Sh. Gaurav Suyal and Ors.
22. A copy of the Judgment be kept in the appeal No. 146 of 2017.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) Judicial Member II (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member Pronounced on: 18.10.2022 14