State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Abhay Jhanji vs 1. The Principal, College Of ... on 21 November, 2008
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1534 of 2007
Date of institution : 28.11.2007
Date of decision : 21.11.2008
Abhay Jhanji son of Shri P.C. Jhanji, R/o 125, New Rajguru Nagar, Ferozepur
Road, Ludhiana.
.......Appellant
Versus
1. The Principal, College of Engineering, Pojewal, Nawanshahr (AICTE
Approved).
2. The Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar through its Principal Secretary.
......Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 11.10.2007 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ludhiana.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Mrs. Jasbir Kapoor, Member.
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member.
Present :-
For the appellant : Sh. P.K. Kataria, Advocate.
For the respondents : Sh. R.K. Sharma, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
Abhay Jhanji appellant joined the regular course of Bachelor of Engineering in the College of Engineering, Pojewal, Nawanshahr respondent No.1. He had deposited necessary fee vide receipt dated 9.8.2000 for the year 2000-2001. He had also deposited the security fee of Rs.4,000/- which was refundable at the end of the studies. He completed his graduation in May/June 2004 but the security amount of Rs.4,000/- was not refunded by respondent No.1 within the prescribed period of six months.
2. It was further stated that even the degree certificate of graduation was not sent by respondent No.1 to the appellant at his home address nor it was given to him in the convocation held on 23.11.2004. The appellant made repeated visits in First Appeal No.1534 of 2007. 2 the College of respondent No.1 for getting the degree and the security fee but in vain. He had also made similar requests on telephone for a number of times.
3. It was further pleaded that the appellant was advised by respondent No.1 on 10.2.2005 on telephone to send a demand draft of Rs.50/- to respondent No.1 for getting the degree certificate. The appellant complied with it by sending the demand draft of Rs.50/- on 22.2.2005. Even then respondent No.1 failed to send the degree certificate to the appellant. It was further pleaded that the appellant had joined ICFAI on 4.11.2004 and he was employed as Branch Executive in the said University on the condition that the appellant was to submit the original degree certificate of Computer Science and Engineering. Since respondent No.1 failed to provide degree certificate to the appellant, he had to resign from the said job. As a result he had suffered a damage to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-.
4. The appellant was a progressive student. He could not pursue his career opportunities for want of original degree certificate. The appellant had served a legal notice dated 23.5.2005 on respondent No.1 for refund of the security amount of Rs.4,000/- with interest and also claimed compensation. Thereafter respondent No.1 sent the cheque amounting to Rs.3,000/- vide letter dated 11.6.2005 towards the security deposit amount. Respondent No.1 has thereby violated the rules and regulations and failed to perform his own duties which caused great financial loss to the appellant besides the loss of reputation, mental torture and sufferings to him. Hence the appellant filed the complaint in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short "District Forum") for claiming degree certificate, compensation, interest and costs.
5. Respondent No.1 filed the written reply. It was admitted that the appellant was a regular student of Bachelor of Engineering in the College of respondent No.1 in the academic year 2000-2001 and he had deposited the necessary fee etc. and that he passed out in the year May/June 2004. It was admitted that the appellant had deposited the security amount which was adjustable towards the upkeepment and proper care of the furniture and other items of the College availed First Appeal No.1534 of 2007. 3 by the students during their stay in the College. In case of breakage/loss of College furniture or other goods/items by the student, the amount of loss so incurred was to be deducted out of the refundable security amount deposited with the College. An amount of Rs.3,000/- had already been returned to the appellant out of the security amount of Rs.4,000/- and Rs.1,000/- were deducted on account of loss to the College furniture and other items which were caused by the appellant during his stay in the College/Hostel.
6. It was further pleaded that the degree of the appellant was to be supplied by the Punjab Technical University, respondent no.2 but the same was not yet received by respondent No.1. On its part respondent No.1 had written letters to respondent No.2 but the degree certificate of the appellant was not received from respondent No.2 by respondent No.1. The amount of Rs.50/- sent by the appellant by demand draft was returned vide letter dated 24.3.2005 with the intimation that the degree certificate could not be supplied to the appellant as it was not received from respondent No.2. The degree certificate could not be issued to the appellant as he had not cleared the paper/exam of one of his semesters of his degree course and he had yet to pass the course completely and therefore, he was not eligible to be granted degree. There was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.1 in the performance of its duties nor respondent no.1 has caused any financial loss or mental tension to the appellant.
7. It was denied for want of knowledge if the appellant had taken the job in ACFAI or he had to leave the job for want of degree. It was pleaded that respondent No.1 cannot be blamed for the alleged loss of job of the appellant. Hence dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
8. Respondent No.2 also filed written reply. It was denied for want of knowledge if the convocation was held on 23.11.2004. It was pleaded that the appellant had never come in the office of respondent No.2 nor he had deposited any requisite fee for the issuance of provisional degree certificate. No First Appeal No.1534 of 2007. 4 correspondence was ever made by the appellant with respondent No.2. It was denied if the appellant had left any job for want of degree certificate.
9. It was admitted that the appellant was a regular student of Bachelor of Engineering in the batch of 2000. He had cleared the eighth semester in the examination held in May, 2004. The result was declared sometimes thereafter. The detailed marks certificate was issued to him on 16.7.2004 which could have been used for any purpose in lieu of degree certificate. The University issues provisional degrees/certificates on the individual request of the students concerned on payment of fees. The appellant had never made any request nor had deposited the fee for the issuance of provisional degree certificate. The degree certificates of the batch of the appellant were issued after the convocation was held by the University in February 2005. No request was ever received by the University from the College nor from the appellant for the issuance of the degree certificate. There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.2. The degree certificate of the appellant was prepared and was issued to him on 18.10.2005. Hence dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
10. Abhay Jhanji appellant tendered documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C24 and also submitted his affidavit Ex.CA. The appellant has also tendered the affidavit of Parvesh Atwal son of Shri Tarsem Atwal, Executive Subscriptions in ICFAI as Ex.CB. On the other hand, the respondents proved the affidavit of Sarojni Gautam Sharda as Ex.RW1 and the affidavit of M.P. Singh Rana, Lieutenant (retired) as Ex.RW2.
11. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents placed on file by them, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint with costs of Rs.500/- vide impugned order dated 11.10.2007 and directed respondent No.1 to return the security amount of Rs.1,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. An amount of Rs.1,000/- was also awarded as compensation for harassment and inconvenience caused to the appellant in causing delay in the First Appeal No.1534 of 2007. 5 issuance of the degree certificate. Respondent No.1 was also directed to send the degree certificate to the appellant.
12. Respondents have not filed any appeal but Abhay Jhanji appellant has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.
13. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
14. The submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 was that consumer complaint is not maintainable relating to the educational institutions as the educational institutions discharge their statutory duties which do not amount to service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
15. This submission has no force. Hon'ble National Commission has made the law clear by holding that in certain matters even the educational institutions render service to the students. Reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission reported as "Board of Secondary Education and another v. Sasmita Moharana" II(2007) CPJ 154 (NC).
16. The appellant has specifically taken the plea that the degree certificate was not sent by respondent No.1 to the appellant in spite of his repeated reminders sent to respondent No.1.
17. Respondent No.1 has, however, taken the plea in the written reply that degree could not be sent to the appellant as he had yet to clear one paper/exam of one of his semesters of his degree course and he had yet to pass the course completely. Therefore, he was not eligible to be granted degree.
18. This plea taken by respondent No.1 has been falsified by the written reply filed by respondent No.2 who has taken the plea that the appellant had cleared all the eight semesters in the examination held in May 2004 and even the detailed marks certificate was issued to him on 16.7.2004.
19. Respondent No.1 has also taken the plea in the written statement that respondent No.1 had sent letters to respondent No.2 for the issuance of original degree of the appellant but since it was not received from respondent No.2, First Appeal No.1534 of 2007. 6 therefore, respondent No.1 could not send the same to the appellant and there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.1.
20. This fact is again rebutted by respondent No.2 in the written statement in which it is pleaded that no request was ever received by respondent No.2 for the issuance of degree certificate to the appellant either from the appellant or from respondent No.1. This clearly reveals negligence on the part of respondent No.1 in not only remitting the detail marks certificate/degree certificate to the appellant but also for taking the false pleas in the written statement.
21. It is not disputed between the parties that Abhay Jhanji appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards the security deposits which was refundable after passing out of the examination by the student. The appellant had passed out in May/June 2004 but respondent No.1 remitted Rs.3,000/- to the appellant vide cheque dated 1.6.2005 along with letter dated 11.6.2005. It means, therefore, that neither the full security amount was remitted by respondent No.1 to the appellant as only Rs.3,000/- were remitted out of Rs.4,000/- of the security amount nor it was remitted in time.
22. No doubt the respondents have taken the plea that Rs.1,000/- were deducted because of the loss of the furniture/other items caused by the appellant during his stay in the College. The details of the loss have not been given. Moreover, even if the amount of Rs.1,000/- was to be deducted, a detailed well reasoned order should have been passed by respondent No.1 for deducting a sum of Rs.1,000/- out of security amount and the remaining amount of Rs.3,000/- should have been remitted to the appellant without delay. In fact respondent No.1 has caused delay of about full one year for remitting the amount. Clearly, therefore, there was negligence on the part of respondent No.1 in performing its duties and there was deficiency in service.
23. Accordingly this appeal is accepted and the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. The appellant is also held entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the entire security amount of Rs.4,000/- First Appeal No.1534 of 2007. 7 from 1st July 2004 (when it had become payable) till the date of payment. In other words, interest at the rate of 9% per annum would be payable on the amount of Rs.3,000/- upto 12.6.2005 from 1.7.2004 while interest at the rate of 9% per annum would be payable on the amount of Rs.1,000/- from 1.7.2004 till the date of payment. The appellant is also awarded litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/- in this appeal besides the amount of Rs.500/- awarded by the learned District Forum. The entire amount as ordered or upheld by this Commission shall be paid by respondent No.1 to the appellant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the appellant would be liable to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of compensation from today till the date of payment.
24. The arguments were heard in this case on 14.11.2008 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
25. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period because of heavy pendency and non-availability of the requisite Benches and infrastructure in the State Commission. The State Government has now sanctioned one additional Bench for the State Commission but it has not become functional for which the process is going on.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(MRS. JASBIR KAPOOR)
MEMBER
November 21, 2008 (LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH [RETD.])
Bansal MEMBER