State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Navneet Kaur vs Punjabi University, Patiala & Another on 18 March, 2016
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.641 of 2013
Date of Institution: 10.06.2013.
Date of Decision : 18.03.2016.
Navneet Kaur, Advocate through her father Jaswant Singh
H.No.2525/B, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh (UT), Pin-160047, Mobile
No. 9888865056.
.....Appellant/complainant
Versus
1. Punjabi University through Vice Chancellor Patiala (Punjab).
2. Army Institute of Law through its Registrar, Sector-68, Mohali
(Punjab).
.....Respondents/opposite parties
First appeal against order dated
16.04.2013 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Mohali.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri H.S. Guram, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Jaswant Singh, Authorised representative For respondent no.1 : Sh. B.M. Singh, Advocate For respondent no.2 : Ex-parte ................................................... J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
The appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against order dated 16.04.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mohali (in short the "District Forum"), vide which, the complaint of the complainant was partly accepted by directing OP no.1 to refund Rs.20,000/- from the date of issuance of no objection certificate dated 25.06.2009 with interest @6% per annum and further directed OP no.1 to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and litigation First Appeal No.641 of 2013 2 expenses. The respondents of this appeal are opposite parties in the complaint.
2. Complainant Navneet Kaur has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that Amy Institute of Law OP no.2 affiliated with Punjabi University Patiala (PU) has been inviting applications for admission every year and selection has been made on the basis of merits of entrance test on all India basis. The complainant applied to OP no.2 for selection and was admitted for first year session 2007-08 for BA LLB course (5 years integrated course) and complainant deposited the fee. It was further averred that OP no.2 is affiliated with OP no.1 and complainant was registered with PU, vide registration no.AIL(M)2007042. First and second semesters passing certificates were issued by PU to the complainant. The complainant applied for further admission by filing admission form for the second year for the session 2008-2009 involving 3rd and 4th semesters after passing first year and was accordingly admitted. In the second week of June, 2009, complainant enquired from Enquiry officer at Reception Counter of PU for inter college migration from Army Institute of Law to PU due to financial constraints. As per information; PU was having vacant seats and was ready for migration subject to issue of No Objection Certificate and Migration Certificate by Army Institute of Law OP no.2. The complainant purchased migration certificate form from the counter of OP no.1 for Rs.50/-. It was further averred that no First Appeal No.641 of 2013 3 objection certificate and migration certificate dated 25.06.2009 were issued to complainant without any demur. The complainant applied for permission of migration for inter college migration in the 5th semester of 3rd year session in the PU OP no.1, vide application dated 29.06.2009 and pursued the matter for grant of early permission vigorously, vide letters dated 17.07.2009 and 17.08.2009. OP no.1 failed to take the matter to its logical conclusion. Somewhat, belatedly it was granted, vide letter dated 16.09.2009 and complainant was directed to deposit the migration fee of Rs.1 lakh. Punjab School of Law has been established by PU at its Campus and has been under control of OP no.1 and it introduced first time BA LLB (5 years integrated course) in the academic session of year 2009 and there was shortage of students being new batch there. Demand of Rs.1 lakh as migration fee was unreasonable, arbitrary and unfair by OP no.1, being in violation of Article 14 and violative of Directive Principles contained in Articles 39(f) and 44 of Constitution of India. The complainant was forced to deposit migration fee of Rs.1 lakh under compulsion due to the reason that in every other colleges; admission process was closed and academic session was opened in the 3rd week of July, 2009 including at OP no.1. The father of the complainant, who was ailing and was discharged on 14.10.2009 only with the advice of further rest. The father of the complainant had to incur the loan of Rs.1 lakh on 12.25% interest per annum on monthly rest basis from State Bank of India Chandigarh on 16.09.2009 for this purpose. The complainant deposited Rs.1,52,185/- as migration fee, admission fee First Appeal No.641 of 2013 4 including refundable security (Rs.20,000/-) under compulsion. The migration is considered by PU from the PU Campus to the inter colleges under the portion of the syndicate resolution dated 29.06.2000 dealing with 'inter college migration' under which fee of Rs.5000/- was fixed. The complainant obtained information under Right to Information Act (RTI), vide application dated 02.10.2012 for relevant copies of rules and regulations issued by PU or by syndicate regulating the procedure and charging of migration fee. OP no.1 intimated to complainant, vide letter dated 06.04.2010 that migration fee of Rs.1 lakh is charged according to the rules and as per the order of the higher officers. The complainant filed appeal, vide application dated 21.09.2010 to Vice Chancellor of OP no.1 against illegal demand of Rs.1 lakh as migration fee and complainant also issued legal notice dated 16.08.2012 to OP no.1, but to no effect. The complainant suffered loss of study till the end of September 2009 due to delayed permission of migration and she was not able to get good marks in 5th semester. It was further averred that OP no.1 got deposited Rs.20,000/- as security to be refundable at the time completion of course. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying that OP no.1 be directed to refund Rs.95,000/- alongwith 12 % compound intrest on yearly basis from 17.09.2009 till its payment, ii) to pay Rs.26,227/- on account of payment of migration fee paid by her father with compound interest @12% yearly basis till payment, iii) to pay Rs.4,75,000/- on account of damages for personal injuries and mental tension to her father, iv) to pay Rs.1,90,000/- on account of aggravated damages, v) to pay First Appeal No.641 of 2013 5 Rs.95,000/- on account punitive damages, vi) to pay Rs.2 lakhs for loss and sufferings to the future career, vii) to pay Rs.4215/- on account of direct monetary loss alongwith interest 12% per annum till its payment.
3. Upon notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed written reply by raising preliminary objections that complaint is barred by time and is not maintainable under Section 24-A of the Act. The cause of action accrued to complainant on 16.09.2009 and the complaint filed by her is barred by time. The complaint is alleged to be not maintainable in as much as complainant is not consumer of OP no.1, as it is not a service provider. The migration fee paid by the students to educational institutions is not consideration for availment of any service, but the charge paid for the privilege of participation in the examination. The complainant deposited migration fee at Patiala and District Forum Mohali has no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. The validity of letter no.3756 dated 16.09.2009 and letter no.644 dated 05.09.2012 has not been challenged by the complainant, which was valid, legal and strictly in accordance with the law. There is no question of equity in favour of complainant. On merits, it was averred that complainant has not impleaded the enquiry officer of reception as a party in the case. It was further pleaded that as per decision of the Syndicate dated 21.06.2003, the migration fee for professional courses has been fixed at Rs.1 lakh from college/regional centre to the campus of OP no.1. OP no.1 told the complainant vide letter no.3756 dated 16.09.2009 to deposit First Appeal No.641 of 2013 6 Rs.1 lakh as migration fee. The complainant deposited the fee of Rs.1 lakh, vide demand draft no.490109 dated 16.09.2009 voluntarily. She had the choice to deposit the fee or not to deposit the fee. The complainant was required to pay hostel and other expenses. The security amount of Rs.20,000/-, if any is deposited with OP no.2 i.e. Army Institute of Law Mohali, which functions under the aegis of Army Welfare Education Society, which is a registered society under the Registration of Societies Act XXI of 1860. The complainant was allowed migration at the premises of OP no.1. The deposit of migration fee by complainant was voluntary. The migration fee has been revised to Rs.1 lakh for LLB/professional course, as per decision of Syndicate of OP no.1 dated 21.06.2003. The matter of refund of security amount gives no cause of action to complainant to file the complaint before Consumer Forum. OP no.1 controverted the averments of the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. OP no.2 was set ex-parte before the District Forum, vide order dated 19.11.2012. The complainant filed rejoinder in support of her allegations.
4. The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CW- 1/1 alongwith index Ex.C-1/1 and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-31 and closed the evidence. OP no.1 did not lead any evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint of the complainant. Dissatisfied with the order of District Forum Mohali dated 16.04.2013, the complainant now appellant preferred this appeal against the same. First Appeal No.641 of 2013 7
5. We have heard Sh. Jaswant Singh, authorized representative of appellant and Sh. B.M. Singh counsel for respondent no.1 in this appeal and have also examined the record of the case. The appellant contended that OP no.1 has regional centre at Mohali names as "Regional Centre for Information Technology and Management at Mohali". The District Forum wrongly relied upon resolution dated 21.06.2003 of OP no.1 under letter dated 28.01.2013. The migration fee of Rs.1 lakh fixed by OP no.1 Punjabi University for migration is from PU Regional Centers at Bathinda/ Talwandi Sabon/Mohali to PU Campus and migration from other Universities or change/shift from morning to evening for the courses of LLB/LLM, Lib., B.Lib.. These courses are directly run by PU since long back and Rs.5000/- is the charges for migration fee, vide Syndicate resolution. The bone of contention between the parties is whether OP no.1 rightly charged the migration fee of Rs.1 lakh, instead of Rs.5000/- as projected by the appellant before us in this case. The appellant mainly based her case on Syndicate Resolution of OP no.1 The case of OP no.1 is based on letter dated 28.01.2013. There is no dispute of facts that complaint was admitted at Army Institute of Law and she applied for migration due to her financial constaints to OP no.1 Campus at Patiala. Her migration was allowed by OP no.1 and the dispute arose between the parties on the point that OP no.1 wrongly charged Rs.1 lakh instead of Rs.5000/- as migration fee in this case. We have examined the documents on the record in this case. The case of the complainant consists of First Appeal No.641 of 2013 8 documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-31 on the record. OP no.1 has not placed on record any evidence.
6. From evaluation of evidence on the record, it is proved that OP no.1 intimated complainant vide letter dated 06.04.2010 Ex.C-21 that migration fee cannot be refunded to her. Vide letter Ex.C-24 dated 05.09.2012, OP no.1 informed the complainant that as per University Syndicate resolution dated 21.06.2003, migration fee of LLB Course is Rs.1 lakh. OP no.1 based its case on Syndicate Resolution dated 21.06.2003 enhancing the migration fee in LLB Courses to Rs.1 lakh. On the other hand, the complainant relied upon Syndicate Resolution Annexure A-4 dated 23.06.2000 to the effect that migration fee is Rs.5000/- only. Annexure C-18 is the handbook of information professional courses 2009-2010 by OP no.1. Ex.C-19 is the application under RTI dated 02.10.2012 from father of the complainant to OP no.1. It is recorded in it that inter college migration fee is Rs.5000/-. Vide letter no.644 dated 05.09.2012, the complainant was informed that as per University Syndicate Resolution, migration fee has been enhanced to Rs.1 lakh.
7. The dispute is between the parties as whether the migration fee has been rightly charged by OP no.1 to the extent of Rs.1 lakh or it was to be charged @ Rs.5000/- only. The complainant relied upon some authorities of Supreme Court of India in cases "Sushil Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar" AIR 2004 SC 230, "M.Venkataraman Hebbar (D) by L.RS. versus M. Rajgopal First Appeal No.641 of 2013 9 Hebbar & others" AIR 2007 SC (Supp)43, in "Sukhdev Singh Vs. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi" AIR 1975 SC 1331, in "DAV College, Bhatinda Vs. State of Punjab" AIR 1971 SC 1731 and some other authorities as quoted by her in the appeal. We find that OP no.1 raised the objection before us that the dispute is not cognizable by Consumer Forum. The authorities cited by appellant do not lay down that admission, fee between the student and University can be entertained and adjudicated by Consumer Forum. The Supreme Court of India has examined law on this point in "Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur" 2010(2)CPC- 696 and held that examination fee does not come under the category of consideration for providing service. University board is not a service provider nor student is a consumer. The Apex Court has also ruled in case "P.T. Koshy & another Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & others" 2012(3)CPC-615, wherein it has been held that education institutions are not providing any kind of service. In matter of admission, fee etc. there cannot be question of deficiency of service as the matter cannot be entertained by Consumer Forum under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Apex Court has categorically held in this authority that education is not a commodity to be covered under the Act. Our own State Commission has held in "Ramesh Kumar Jain & another Vs. Guru Nanak Dev University & others"
in first appeal no.1131 of 2010, decided on 10.10.2013 that education is not commodity. Education institutions are not providing any kind of service hence in matter of admission, fee etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency in service. First Appeal No.641 of 2013 10
8. In view of law laid down by the Apex Court and as held by our own State Commission in the above referred authority, education institution is not a service provider and student is not consumer because education is not a commodity. Consequently, such type of matter is not cognizable by the Consumer Forum under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The parties are at liberty to get the matter decided from competent Court of Law and Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 can be invoked before the competent Forum in this regard, if need be.
9. As a result of our above discussions, we find no merit in the appeal of the appellant and the same is hereby dismissed.
10. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 10.03.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (H.S.GURAM) MEMBER March 18, 2016.
(MM)