State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ramesh Kumar Jain vs Guru Nanak Dev University on 10 October, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1131 of 2010
Date of institution : 29.06.2010
Date of decision : 10.10.2013
1. Ramesh Kumar Jain C/o Mayank Jain, R/o H.No.12/22, Ucha
Sodhi Inderjit Singh, Mohalla Dharampura, Ferozepur City.
2. Mayank Jain, aged 22 years son of Shri Ramesh Kumar Jain,
R/o H.No.12/22, Ucha Sodhi Inderjit Singh, Mohalla
Dharampura, Ferozepur City.
.......Appellants- Complainants
Versus
1. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar through its Registrar.
2. Regional Campus of Guru Nanak Dev University, Gurdaspur,
through its Principal/Competent Officer.
3. Punjabi University, Patiala, through its Registrar.
......Respondents-Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order dated
19.05.2010 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Shri Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate. For respondent No.1&2: None.
For respondent No.3 : Ex parte.
JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The appellants/complainants have preferred this appeal against the order dated 19.5.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short, "District Forum"), vide First Appeal No.1131 of 2010. 2 which their complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") for issuance of directions to the respondents/opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs.30,270/-, having been collected as the fee and Rs.6,380/- as hostel charges, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of submission of that claim till the payment of those amounts and to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for the harassment, mental tension and agony suffered by them, was dismissed.
2. Brief facts, to be taken notice of for the decision of the present appeal, are that Mayank Jain, complainant No.2, son of Ramesh Kumar Jain, complainant No.1 applied for admission in MBA, for which the Joint Entrance Test was conducted by the opposite parties along with Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar known as "Management Entrance Test-2008". He qualified in that test and appeared in the first counseling round and was allotted seat in Regional Campus, Gurdaspur-opposite party No.2. He deposited Rs.39,070/-, vide receipt dated 6.8.2008 and hostel charges of Rs.6,380/-, vide receipt dated 28.8.2008 and also the Mess Security (Refundable) to the tune of Rs.2,000/-, vide receipt dated 28.8.2008. The counseling was to be conducted in two rounds and when he participated in the second counseling conducted on 11.9.2008, he got a seat in P.C.T.E. Badowal, which was the most suitable to him and without any delay he gave up the seat, which was allotted to him by opposite party No.2. He requested that party to refund the fee and the other charges so deposited by him. The opposite parties First Appeal No.1131 of 2010. 3 wrongly deducted Rs.30,970/- out of the fee of the Course and also retained Rs.6,380/- paid as hostel charges, illegally.
2. In the written reply, opposite parties No.1 and 2 averred that the amounts after making the necessary deductions have already been refunded to the complainants and the deductions have been made as per the Calendar of the University.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the complainants as none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.1 and 2 and opposite party No.3 was proceeded against ex parte. We have also carefully gone through the records of the case.
4. The question as to whether the Educational Institutes fall under the definition of 'Service Providers' is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha [IV(2009) CPJ 34 (SC)] held that Education Boards and Universities are not 'Service Providers' and the complaints against them are not maintainable under the Act. For that finding, the detailed reasoning was given in the judgment. However, in that case the question was whether the Board or University becomes a Service Provider while holding the examinations, evaluating the answering scripts, declaring the result and issuing certificates? It was held therein that while doing so in discharge of its statutory function the University or the School Examination Board does not offer its services to any candidate and the process is not the availment of a service by a student but is a participation in a general examination so conducted to ascertain whether he is eligible or fit for consideration as having successfully First Appeal No.1131 of 2010. 4 completed the particular course. The 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. It was also held therein that a student who takes an examination is not a consumer and consequently the complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board of the University. Again the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur [2010 CTJ 985 (Supreme Court) (CP)] upheld that proposition of law.
5. The same question is involved in SLP No.13472 of 2012 (Chairman, Desh Bhagat Dental College & Ors. v. Archita Vedi). In view of the pendency of that SLP, this appeal was being adjourned for awaiting the orders. In the meanwhile, there was another pronouncement of the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 9.8.2012 in SLP (Civil) No.22532 of 2012 (P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors.), which has been reported in 2012(3) CPC 615. The view expressed in Maharshi Dayanand University's case (supra) was again endorsed and the following short order was passed:-
"1. In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010(11) SCC 159 = 2010(2) CPC 696 S.C. wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. First Appeal No.1131 of 2010. 5 Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."
6. In view of this consistent and the latest view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is to be concluded that the respondents/opposite parties, being a University, are not Service Providers and, as such, the complaint filed against them is not entertainable by the Consumer Foras under the Act.
7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
8. The arguments in this case were heard on 4.10.2013 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) October 10, 2013 MEMBER Bansal