State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Principal, Guru Nanak College, ... vs Akhil Aggarwal on 16 April, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 54 of 2011
Date of institution : 12.01.2011
Date of decision : 16.04.2014
The Principal, Guru Nanak College, Ferozepur Cantt, Tehsil and
District Ferozepur through Principal.
....Appellant- opposite party No.1
Versus
1. Akhil Aggarwal, aged 23 years, son of Ravinder Aggarwal,
resident of House No.B, 7/158, Mohalla Dudan, Near Dr.
Rattan Singh, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
....Respondent No.1-complainant
2. The Assistant Registrar, Panjab University, Chandigarh.
....Respondent No.2-opposite party No.2
First Appeal against the order dated
26.11.2010 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. D.S.Sidhu, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. Abhishek Singla, Advocate For respondent No.2 : Dr. Davinder Singh, Representative.
JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/opposite party No.1 against the order dated 26.11.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (hereinafter referred to as the 'District Forum'), vide which, the complaint filed by the respondent No.1 -complainant., Akhil Aggarwal, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (in short the 'Act'), was allowed and this opposite party was directed to refund the fee paid First Appeal No.54 of 2011 2 by the complainant, without making any deduction therefrom, and to pay Rs.50,000/-, as consolidated compensation for the loss of one year of the career of the complainant, mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.3,000/-, as litigation expenses, within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the impugned order and failing that to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the above said amounts.
2. As per the allegations, made in the complaint, the complainant after doing his graduation from Punjabi University Patiala joined the college of opposite party No.1 for PGDCA Course on 20.07.2009 and at that time the sum of Rs.5,000/-, was received from him, vide receipt dated 27.07.2009 and Roll No.1257 was issued to him. Thereafter, he attended the classes regularly. On 23.11.2009 opposite party received the sum of Rs.10,000/- from him as examination fee, vide receipt dated 23.11.2009 and another sum of Rs.5,850/- was received, vide receipt dated 15.02.2010. He was issued University roll No.427 for appearing in the examination for the session 2009-10 conducted by opposite party No.2 and accordingly he appeared in that examination under that roll number. He paid a sum of Rs.300/-, as registration fee for getting himself migrated from Punjabi University Patiala to Panjab University Chandigarh. Though he was offered a lucrative job by Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Company Limited with a pay package of Rs.2,50,000/-, yet he continued his studies for clearing the above said course. To his utter surprise he was not allowed to appear in the final examination conducted by opposite party No.2 in view of the letter dated 16.04.2010 issued by opposite party No.1 that he was ineligible, First Appeal No.54 of 2011 3 having not obtained 50% marks in aggregate in B.A. This was negligence on the part of the opposite party No.1 to allow him admission if he was not eligible. As a result of this negligence on the part of that opposite party he has undergone mental pressure and agony and also suffered huge shock, having wasted one year of his useful career and having lost the above said job. For that he is entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. He is also entitled to the refund of Rs.80,000/-, paid by him to the opposite parties and the litigation expenses.
3. The opposite parties filed independent written replies before the District Forum. Opposite party No.1, in its written reply, averred that the basic qualification for eligibility to PGDCA course was that the candidate must have obtained 50% marks in B.A. There was mala fide intention on the part of the complainant as at the time of obtaining the admission he only submitted the certificate of matriculation and had assured that the other documents would be submitted by him within few days. He had passed B.A. from Punjabi University Patiala and in the form filled up by him he had mentioned that he had obtained 52% marks in B.A. Part III. He was provisionally admitted in this course subject to the approval of the University. The detailed marks certificate of B.A. was well in his possession at the time of admission but he withheld the same. The provisional admission was given to him on 20.07.2009 whereas the migration certificate had been issued by Punjabi University Patiala on 20.10.2009. No other document was produced by him at the time of his admission. Even on repeated requests he only submitted the First Appeal No.54 of 2011 4 detailed marks certificate of B.A Part III and the migration certificate and that too with the penalty of Rs.3,000/-. After the receipt of the migration certificate his candidature was scrutinized at University level and it was found that he was not eligible having not secured 50% marks in aggregate in B.A. Information was accordingly given to it by the University on 15.04.2010. The complainant was infomed about in ineligibility immediately, vide letter dated 16.04.2010 and that letter was received by him by hand. He was informed by the College that it was ready to refund the fee as a gesture of goodwill after deducting the University charges and at the time of his admission his father had submitted a wrong declaration and is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing this complaint, which is nothing but misuse of the process of the District Forum. He does not fall within the ambit of 'Consumer'. Complicated questions of law and evidence are involved, which requires lengthy process and includes summoning of witnesses and record and as such the District Forum cannot try and decide the complaint. It prayed for the dismissal thereof.
4. Opposite party No.2, in its written reply, made averments only regarding the facts pertaining to it. It averred that the roll number was sent to the College as per the demand and it was for the College authorities to make the scrutiny regarding the eligibility criteria. The scrutiny of the examination form is made after the issuance of the roll number and before that screening the roll number is to be treated as provisional. It was only after that screening that the roll numbers are issued to the candidates who First Appeal No.54 of 2011 5 fulfil the eligibility criteria. The complainant was not eligible to appear in the examination as he was not fulfilling the condition of having secured at least 50% marks in aggregate in B.A. He obtained admission in the course by concealing that fact. There was no negligence on its part nor there was any deficiency in service on its part. The complainant is not a consumer and as such his complaint is not maintainable. It is not a service provider.
5. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
7. It was submitted by counsel for the appellant that in view of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. reported in 2012 (3) CPC 615 the complaint itself was not maintainable and the appeal is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.
8. However, learned counsel for the complainant came up with the plea that on the basis of that judgment it cannot be concluded that the complaint was not maintainable and there is no ground for allowing the appeal.
9. The following short order was passed in the above said judgment as under:
"1. In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur First Appeal No.54 of 2011 6 2010(11) SCC 159 = 2010(2) CPC 696 S.C. wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier 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."
10. The perusal of the order makes it clear that the complaint was not maintainable against the opposite parties, who are Educational Institutions and that itself was a ground for the dismissal of the complaint. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
11. The sum of Rs.26,500/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellant/opposite party No.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
12. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)
PRESIDENT
(SURINDER PAL KAUR)
April 16, 2014 MEMBER
Kumud
First Appeal No.54 of 2011 7
First Appeal No.54 of 2011 8