State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rajiv Kumar vs Malout Institute Of Management And ... on 11 November, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 121 of 2011
Date of institution : 24.01.2011
Date of decision : 11.11.2013
Rajiv Kumar, aged 20 years, son of Sh. Krishan Lal son of
Kheta Ram, resident of Village Khui Khera, Tehsil Fazilka,
District Ferozepur, Punjab.
.......Appellant-complainant
Versus
1. Malout Institute of Management and Information Technology,
Malout, District Muktsar, through its Principal.
2. Punjab Technical University, Ladowal Road, Jalandhar City,
through its Registrar.
......Respondents-opposite parties
First Appeal against the order dated
20.12.2010 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Davinder Bir singh, Advocate.
For respondent No.1 : None
For respondent No.2 : Sh. Anuj Bhalla, Advocate
JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The appellant/complainant, Rajiv Kumar, has preferred this appeal against the order dated 20.12.2010, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (hereinafter referred to as the 'District Forum'), vide which, the complaint filed by him U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for issuance of the directions to opposite party No.1 to pay Rs. 29,897/-, along with interest @ 2% per annum from 01.09.2008 till the date of realization, Rs. 60,000/-, as compensation for the mental harassment and agony First Appeal No.121 of 2011 2 suffered by him and Rs. 5,500/-, as cost of the complaint, was dismissed. He averred therein that on 12.08.2008, he took admission in opposite party No. 1 Institute in B.Tech. (Agri Engineering) after making payment of Rs. 34,897/-, by means of bank draft. He attended that institute for about 7 days but no class roll number and identity card was issued to him nor the lecturer was available nor the classes started. The counseling had been going on for about one and a half month, as a result of which he could not digest the environment of this institute. On 01.09.2008, he got admission in B.Tech (Agri. Engineering) of Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana. On 04.09.2008 he moved an application before opposite party No.1 that he had left the institute and was surrendering his seat. Thereafter, he and his father approached opposite party No. 1 number of times for the refund of the of the part of said fee and only Rs. 4,000/-, was refunded whereas only a sum of Rs. 1,000/-, could have been deducted from the total fee so deposited by him. He brought the relevant instructions and judgments to the notice of opposite party No.1, but it did not comply with the same; which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part.
2. The joint written reply was submitted by the opposite parties in which they admitted that the complainant had obtained admission in B.Tech (Agri. Engineering) of opposite party No. 1 institute and had deposited the fee as mentioned in the complaint and that subsequently he left this institute, while denying the other averments made in the complaint. They pleaded that after the date of the First Appeal No.121 of 2011 3 completion of direct admissions registration-cum-roll numbers and identity cards were issued to the students; after their enrollment in the University. Till then the attendance of the students; was marked temporarily in their classes on the basis of their names. The Institute was stated on 13.08.2008 and the faculty was available at that time. There was no compulsion on the part of the complainant to join opposite party No.2 and it was just his discretion. The seat which was filled up was never declared vacant and was not filled up at any point of time. In these circumstances, the complainant was entitled to only the refund of the security and no other part of the fee was refundable to him.
3. 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, dismissed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 came out with a contention that in view of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2012(3) CPC 615 (P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors.), the complaint itself was not maintainable and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant came up with a plea that on the basis of that judgment it cannot be concluded that the complaint was not maintainable and there is no ground for dismissing the appeal.
First Appeal No.121 of 2011 4
7. Admittedly, the opposite parties are an Educational Institute. The following short order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Koshy and another's case (supra):-
"1. In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur 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."
8. In view of that judgment, it is to be held that the opposite parties were not a service provider and, as such, the complaint under the Act is not maintainable against it.
9. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)
PRESIDENT
(MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR)
November 11, 2013 MEMBER
Kumud
First Appeal No.121 of 2011 5