State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Dean (Examination), Punjab ... vs Miss Neha Kalra on 17 February, 2014
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1256 of 2010
Date of institution: 21.7.2010
Date of Decision: 17.2.2014
The Dean (Examination), Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar.
.....Appellant/OP No. 2
Versus
1. Miss Neha Kalra daughter of Sh. Mahesh Kalra, resident of H.
No. 1325, Badshahi Bagh Colony, Ambala.
...Respondent No. 1/Complainant
2. The Principal, Swami Vivekanand Institute of Engineering &
Technology, Zirakpur-Patiala Highway, Ram Nagar, Near Banur,
Tehsil Rajpura, Distt. Patiala.
.....Respondent No.2/OP No.1
Argued By:-
For the appellant : Sh. Ajaib Singh, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Sh. Chander Shekhar, Advocate
For respondent No.2 : None.
2nd Appeal
First Appeal No. 1306 of 2010
Date of institution: 29.7.2010
The Principal, Swami Vivekanand Institute of Management & Technology,
Chandigarh-Patiala National Highway, Ram Nagar, Near Banur (Pb.)
through its Principal.
.....Appellant/OP No. 1
Versus
1. Miss Neha Kalra daughter of Sh. Mahesh Kalra, resident of H. No.
1325, Badshahi Bagh Colony, Ambala City.
...Respondent No. 1/Complainant
2. The Dean (Examination), Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar.
.....Respondent No.2/OP No.2
Argued By:-
For the appellant : None.
For respondent No.1 : Sh. Chander Shekhar, Advocate
For respondent No.2 : Sh. Ajaib Singh, Advocate
First Appeals against the order dated 2.3.2010
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Patiala.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1256 OF 2010 2
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member
ORDER
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member This judgment will dispose of above mentioned two appeals. Both the appeals are against the impugned order dated 2.3.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short the "District Forum") vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed with the direction to OP No. 1 to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant. OP No. 2 was further directed to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and both the Ops were directed to issue final degree of MBA to the complainant within one month and both of them were also directed to pay to the complainant litigation costs of Rs. 2,000/-.
2. The complaint was filed by the complainant that she was a student of MBA with OP No. 1 whereas OP No. 2 is the Dean of the University controlling and supervising OP No. 1. OP had charged more than Rs. 1,60,000/- from the complainant and her parents as fee for the course. She had completed her MBA degree in the year 2008. OP No. 1 was to sent internal marks of the students of every paper of every semester, however, the same were not sent by OP No. 1 of 3rd semester of the subject MB-623-MB-304-E2 vide roll No. 638222728, therefore, OP No. 2 had not declared the result of the complainant due to non-submission of the internal marks of the final semester. The complainant alongwith his father approached OP No. FIRST APPEAL NO. 1256 OF 2010 3 1 for sending the internal marks to OP No. 2. They also approached OP No. 2 but it was not fruitful. However, he directed her to approach OP No. 1 who did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant, therefore, there is deficiency in services on the part of Ops, hence, the complaint with the direction to the Ops to issue final degree of MBA, compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 5500/- as litigation costs and Rs. 20,000/- as transportation charges, Rs. 50,000/- for harassment and mental agony.
3. The complaint was contested by the Ops. OP No. 1 in its written statement has denied of charging Rs. 1,60,000/- as excess fee, so far as issuing of the degree is concerned, it was to be issued by OP No. 2 in which OP No. 1 does not have any control. Application for sending the internal marks of the complainant was sent by Principal of OP No. 1 to OP No. 2, which was duly received on 28.5.2008, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 1 and wrongly complaint has been filed against him.
4. Whereas OP No. 2 in its written statement have taken the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the Hon'ble Forum does not have any jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint; the opposite party is a statutory body incorporated by the Act of State of Punjab and has no profit making motive and that the student cannot be consumer qua the University; there is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party and the complaint is false, frivolous and liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was denied that the opposite parties charged excess fee of Rs. 1,60,000/-. The complainant herself admitted that the result has FIRST APPEAL NO. 1256 OF 2010 4 not been declared on account of on submission of internal marks by OP No. 1. It was denied that the complainant and her father had approached this OP. The complaint is without merit and it be dismissed.
5. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
6. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex. C-1, letter dt. 28.5.08 to OP No. 1 Ex. C-2, Third Semester result sheet Ex. C-3, award list of internal award Ex. C-4, receipt Ex. C-5, letters of complainant Ex. C-6 C-7 & C-8, legal notice Ex. C-9, letter of Principal of OP No. 1 Ex. C- 10, letter of complainant Ex. C-11. On the other hand, opposite party No. 2 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sarojini Gautam Sharda, Ex. R-1, third semester number sheet of complainant Ex. R-2.
7. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written statement filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order allowed the complaint as stated above.
8. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, both the parties have filed the above mentioned appeals.
9. It has been contended by counsel for the appellant that PTU is a statutory body enacted under the Act of State of Punjab and has no profit making motive and that the student/complainant cannot be considered as a 'consumer'. In support of this proposition, he has referred the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. "P.T. FIRST APPEAL NO. 1256 OF 2010 5 Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors." 2012(3) C.P.C. 615 (S.C.). It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur", 2010(2) CPC 696 S.C., 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 Court in "Bihar School Examination Board versus Suresh Prasad Sinha" 2010 (1) CLT 255 (SC), which is on the same lines.
10. These judgments were not controverted by the counsel for respondent No.1/complainant that how the complainant comes within the definition of 'consumer' qua the University and College. Accordingly, we find merit in the appeals filed by the opposite parties/appellants and the same are hereby 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.
11. However, respondent No.1/complainant will have the right to adjudicate this matter before the appropriate Forum.
12. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 12.2.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
13. The appellant in F.A. No. 1256 of 2010 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 25,000/- 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. FIRST APPEAL NO. 1256 OF 2010 6
14. The appellant in F.A. No. 1306 of 2010 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 25,000/- 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.
15. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member February 17, 2014. (Harcharan Singh Guram) as Member