State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Adesh Institute Of Pharmacy And ... vs Kamaldeep Kaur Daughter Of Mr. ... on 13 February, 2014
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 98 of 2012
Date of institution: 27.1.2012
Date of Decision: 13.2.2014
Adesh Institute of Pharmacy and Bio-Medical Sciences (Adesh Institute of
Medical Sciences and Research), Barnala Road, Bathinda, District
Bathinda through its Principal Dr. (Prof.) B. Sangameswaran.
.....Appellant/OP No. 3
Versus
1. Kamaldeep Kaur daughter of Mr. Bhupinder Singh, resident of Street
No. 3, Guru Har Rai Nagar, Opposite Rai Palace, Bhucho Kalan, District
Bathinda.
.....Respondent/Complainant
2. Punjab Technical University (PTU), Jalandhar - Kapurthala
Highway, Near Science City, Kapurthala through its Registrar.
3. Punjab Technical University (PTU), Jalandhar - Kapurthala
Highway, Near Science City, Kapurthala through its Dean Academic.
4. S.D. College of Pharmacy, College Road, Barnala through its
Principal.
...Respondents/Ops.
Argued By:-
For the appellant : Sh. Rajan Bansal, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : None.
For respondents No. 2 & 3: Sh. Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate
For respondent No. 4 : None.
First Appeal against the order dated 2.1.2012
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Barnala.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member
ORDER
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member The appellant/OP No. 3(hereinafter called "OP No. 3") has filed the present appeal against the order dated 2.1.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, FIRST APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2012 2 Barnala(hereinafter called "the District Forum") in consumer complaint No.386 dated 4.11.2011 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed with the direction to OP No. 3 to issue no due certificate within 7 days and further pay a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. Ops No. 1 & 2 were further ordered to take immediate action against Op No. 3 for using a coercive and a deceitful method for extracting money from the complainant.
2. The complaint was filed by respondent No. 1/complainant (hereinafter called 'the complainant') alleging that she passed Diploma in Pharmacy Examination of Punjab State Board of Technical Education and industrial Training, Chandigarh through OP No. 3 in May, 2009 and after that she took admission in B. Pharmacy (Lateral Entry) course with OP No. 3. However, due to unavoidable circumstances, she could not continue with her studies, as such, she submitted an application dated 31.5.2011 with OP No. 4 for Migration from 6th Semester to 7th Semester from the institute of Op No. 3 to OP No. 4 and another application was submitted through Op No. 2 to OP No. 4. OP No. 4 sent no objection certificate as some seats were lying in their institute and she also deposited the requisite migration fee amounting to Rs. 10,000/- with OP Nos. 1 & 2. On receiving the fee, OP No. 1notified the migration of the complainant from OP No. 3 to OP No. 4 institution and directed the complainant to obtain No Due Certificate from OP No. 3 as according to the notification of OP No. 1, a student can be taken on its roll by the new College only on production of No Due Certificate, therefore, the admission of the FIRST APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2012 3 complainant could not be confirmed by OP No. 4 in the absence of No Due Certificate not given by OP No. 3. Therefore, there is deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and complaint was filed with a direction to OP No. 1 to give directions to OP No. 3 to comply with the notification dated 11.8.2011 and demanded Rs. 10,000/- on account of damages. OP No. 3 be also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The complaint was contested by the Ops. OP Nos. 1 & 2 had taken preliminary objections that the complaint against them is not maintainable as no relief has been sought against them. However, necessary action against Ops No. 3 & 4 for violation of notification dated 11.8.2011 be taken.
4. Op No. 3 filed written statement taking preliminary objections with regard to locus standi of the complainant to file the complaint and that the complaint is barred by limitation, on the point of maintainability and jurisdiction. On merits, it was stated that the complainant herself is at fault because according to University Rules, migration can be allowed only after the completion of the 2nd semester and before start of 3rd semester whereas the complainant demands for migration with OP No. 4 without the knowledge of OP No. 3 from 6th semester to 7th semester without following the due procedure. Further she is not entitled to no due certificate as she is defaulter in the payment of Development Fund and Student related fee besides defaulting in payment of University Fee of Rs. 575/- and another fee of Rs. 1180/-.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2012 4
5. Similarly, OP No. 4 had also filed the written statement taking preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the complaint against Op No. 4 since the complainant has failed to get the no due certificate from OP No. 3, therefore, she was not allowed to joint the classes and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 4.
6. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
7. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence her affidavit and exhibits Ex. C-1 to C-9. On the other hand, opposite parties Nos. 3 & 4 had tendered into evidence exhibits Ex. R-1 to R-11 but Ops No. 1 & 2 did not file any evidence.
8. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written statement filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed as stated above.
9. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/opposite party No. 3 has filed the present appeal.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondents No. 2 & 3.
11. In the grounds of appeal, it has been contended that the respondent/complainant had submitted the application for migration on 31.5.2011 with OP No. 4 from 6th semester to 7th semester. She had also submitted an application to OP No. 3 through Op No. 4 on FIRST APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2012 5 28.7.2011 seeking migration from the institution of OP No. 3 to the institution of OP No. 4 to which OP No. 4 did not have any objection. OP No. 2 had notified the migration vide their letter dated 11.8.2011 and directed the complainant to obtain 'no due certificate' from the appellant/OP No. 3. However, a sum of Rs. 25,755/- is still outstanding against the respondent/complainant as under:-
Development Fund 4000 x 4 = Rs. 16,000/-
Student Related Fund 2000 x 4 = Rs. 8,000/-
Other Charges 1180 x 1 = Rs. 1,180/-
University Related fee 575 x 1 = Rs. 575/-
================
TOTAL Rs. 25,755/-
================
and without payment of these funds no due certificate cannot be given whereas the learned District Forum has failed to take into consideration this aspect whereas the migration in the 6th semester were not permissible and the order passed by the learned District Forum is liable to be set-aside. Moreover, the complainant/respondent No. 1 does not fall within the definition of 'consumer'.
12. Firstly taking the proposition whether the respondent No. 1/complainant falls within the definition of 'consumer', it has been contended by the counsel for the appellant that it is a education matter and in education matter the complaint before the 'Consumer Fora' is not maintainable as there is no relationship of 'consumer' or 'service provider' it has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur" wherein it was held that matter of admission, fees etc. cannot be a question of deficiency in service. He has also relied upon Hon'ble Supreme FIRST APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2012 6 Court in "Bihar School Examination Board versus Suresh Prasad Sinha" as well as "P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors.".
13. This is a case of refund of fee and it has been specifically mentioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur", 2010(2) CPC 696 S.C., relying upon all earlier judgments 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. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Bihar School Examination Board versus Suresh Prasad Sinha", 2010 (1) CLT 255 (SC) observed that "the Education Boards & Universities are not 'Service Provider' and the complaints against them are not maintainable. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its latest judgment "P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors.", 2012(3) C.P.C. 615 (S.C.) has followed the above views.
14. These judgments were not rebutted by the respondent, therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant/respondent No. 1 is not a consumer or that the appellant is not a service provider being education matter as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred above. In these circumstances, the complaint before the learned District Forum was not maintainable. In case the complaint was not maintainable then no other findings are required to be given, therefore, the order passed by the learned District Forum is liable to be set-aside.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2012 7
15. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted. The order of the learned District Forum is set- aside. The complaint of the complainant is dismissed being not maintainable. No order as to costs.
16. However, respondent No.1/complainant will have the right to adjudicate this matter before the appropriate Forum.
17. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 7.2.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
18. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 12,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 12,500/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum.
19. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Presiding Judicial Member
February 13, 2014. (Harcharan Singh Guram)
as Member