State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ramanand Institute Of Pharma ... vs Bablu on 19 September, 2023
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 274 / 2019
Ramanand Institute of Pharma, Management & Technology (RIPMT)
Jwalapur, District Haridwar
through Authorised Signatory Mrs. Ekta Suri
...... Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
1. Sh. Bablu S/o Sh. Kartar Singh
R/o Sakhan Khurd
District Saharanpur (Uttar Pradesh)
...... Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education
Dehradun
...... Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 2
Sh. Vaibhav Jain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Respondent No. 1 - In person
None for Respondent No. 2
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President
Mr. Udai Singh Tolia, Member-II
Dated: 19/09/2023
ORDER
(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.06.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar (in short "The District Commission") in consumer complaint No. 10 of 2016; Sh. Bablu Vs. Ramanand Institute of Pharma, Management & Technology (RIPMT) and another, by which the consumer complaint was allowed and the appellant and respondent No. 2 (opposite parties to the consumer complaint before the District Commission) were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to respondent No. 1 - complainant 2 together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that in the academic session 2012-13, the respondent No. 1 - complainant had taken admission in Diploma in Civil Engineering course in the appellant - Institute, which is affiliated with respondent No. 2 and submitted all the requisite documents for grant of scholarship. After examination of 1st & 2nd semester, 1st year result of the complainant was not issued and he was admitted / enrolled into 2nd year. Upon seeking information under Right to Information Act, 2005, it transpired that the complainant was unsuccessful in 1st year examination. Prior to examination of 5th semester, an amount of Rs. 16,000/- was demanded by the Institute, which the complainant deposited in cash on 10.08.2014. In order to receive amount from Social Welfare Department, students belonging to Schedule Caste were granted admission in 2nd and 3rd year against the rules. On account of such a conduct of the Institute, three years' of the complainant have turned fruitless and he had undergone mental agony and depression. With the above allegations, consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Commission.
3. The appellant filed written statement before the District Commission, wherein it was pleaded that documents relating to grant of scholarship, were forwarded to the State Government. The complainant was promoted to 2nd semester by respondent No. 2. In the examination of 2nd semester too, the complainant was unsuccessful in four papers and he was promoted to 3rd semester by respondent No. 2 on P.B.P. basis. However, the complainant could not clear / pass back paper of 1st semester. It was mandatory to pass out 1 st 3 semester. The complainant also failed in 4 th semester examination as well as in back paper examination of 1st semester. The complainant applied with respondent No. 2 for re-evaluation of his answer sheet. The complainant himself is responsible for the loss suffered by him and there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The respondent No. 2 filed written statement before the District Commission, pleading that all the mark sheets of the complainant were made available to the Institute, hence the complainant is not entitled to any compensation from the Board.
5. After giving opportunity of hearing, the consumer complaint has been decided by learned District Commission vide impugned judgment and order dated 18.06.2019, thereby allowing the consumer complaint in the above terms. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant - Institute has preferred the instant appeal.
6. We have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant & respondent No. 1 in person and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2, although service of notice upon respondent No. 2 has already been held to be sufficient vide order dated 18.11.2022.
7. The first and foremost issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the respondent No. 1 - complainant falls under the definition of "consumer", as defined under the Act and whether the appellant - Institute and respondent No. 2 - Board can be termed to be "service provider". 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 4 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 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 5 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."
8. 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 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."6
9. 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 earlier judgments, has categorically held that educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there can not be a question of deficiency in service and such matter can not be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
10. Hon'ble National Commission in its 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.
11. 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 clear that the appellant
- Institute and respondent No. 2 - Board are neither "service 7 provider", nor the respondent No. 1 - complainant being a student is a "consumer". Accordingly, we are of the view that the matter in question can not be brought before the Consumer Fora.
12. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that impugned judgment and order passed by learned District Commission suffers from material illegality and the same is erroneous. The appeal deserves to be allowed and impugned judgment and order passed by learned District Commission is liable to be set aside.
13. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 18.06.2019 passed by the District Commission is set aside and consumer complaint No. 10 of 2016 is dismissed. No order as to costs. The amount deposited by the appellant with this Commission, be released in its favour.
14. 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.
(U.S. TOLIA) (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)
Member-II President
K