State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Aashish Ashok Nandigram vs Mats University & Ors. on 8 November, 2017
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Complaint Case No.CC/2017/77
Instituted on : 28.10.2017
Ashish Ashok Nandigramwar, Aged about 43 years,
S/o Shri Ashok Nanaji Nandigramwar,
R/o Lodhipara, Awanti Bai Chowk,
In Front of Raja Kiraya, Near Jaihind Chowk,
Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur (C.G.) ... Complainant
Vs.
(1) MATS University,
Address : MATS Tower, Pagaria Complex,
Pandri, Raipur (C.G.).
(2) Registrar,
Address : MATS Tower, Pagaria Complex,
Pandri, Raipur (C.G.)
(3) Vice Chancellor, MATS University,
Address : Arang-Kharora National Highway,
Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) 493 441
(4) Gajraj Pagaria,
Chancellor, MATS University
Address : Arang-Kharora National Highway,
Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) 493 441
(5) Baiju John,
Vice Chancellor, MATS University,
Address : Arang-Kharora National Highway,
Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) 493 441
(6) Director,
MATS University of Open & Distance Learning,
MATS University,
Address : Arang-Kharora National Highway,
Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) 493 441
(7) Priyansh Pagaria,
Director General, MATS University,
Address : Arang-Kharora National Highway,
Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) 493 441
(8) Gokul Nanda,
Registrar, MATS University,
Address : Arang-Kharora National Highway,
Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) 493 441 ... Opposite Parties
// 2 //
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
Shri B. Kesharwani, Advocate with the complainant.
ORAL ORDER Dated : 8/November/2017 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT.
The complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs seeking following reliefs :-
(a) To direct the OPs to jointly and severally provide original Mark Sheet, Degree Transfer Certificate and Character Certificate regarding the passing of M.A. (Economics) Examination by the complainant, which was organised by the OPs in the month of April, 2017.
(b) The OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Lakhs) towards financial loss suffered by the complainant because the above documents have not been provided by the OPs within prescribed time, due to which the future of the complainant was spoiled.
(c) To direct the OPs to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) to the complainant t for deficiency in service committed by them.
(d) To direct the OPs to pay cost of litigation and advocate fees to the complainant.
// 3 //
(e) Any other relief, which this Commission deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, be awarded to the complainant against the OPs jointly and severally.
2. The main grievance of the complainant in the instant complaint is that for the academic year 2011-12, the complainant Ashish Ashok Nandigramwar got admission in OPs' institutions for studying M.A. (Economics). The registration No. is ODL/11/25ME0008 Programme Code - ME. The OPs organised the examination for M.A. (Economics), which was held in the month of April, 2017 and the complainant had passed the above examination, but the mark sheet was not given by the OPs to the complainant till date. The complainant contacted to the OPs several time, but mark sheet was not provided by the OPs to the complainant and they committed deficiency in service, therefore, the instant complaint is maintainable before this Commission and the instant complaint deserves to be heard on merits.
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the complainant and also perused the averments made by the complainant in the complaint.
4. In Institute of Cooperative Management Vs Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Shitanshu Ranjan, Anshul Saini, Anamika Singh, Nisha Aarif Faridi, III (2014) CPJ 120 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission, has observed thus :-
"9. We have perused the Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC 483, wherein it was held that statutory Board does not provide any service in the sense, the term is used in the Act and examinee is not a consumer.
// 4 // It was held that Board is not a service provider. In para 11 of the said judgment, it was held as under :
"The Board is a statutory authority established under the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952. The function of the Board is to conduct school examinations. This statutory function involves holding periodical examinations, evaluating the answer scripts, declaring the results and issuing certificates. The process of holding examinations, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function. It is not possible to divide this function as partly statutory and partly administrative".
10. The learned Counsel for petitioner has also referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., in Civil Appeal No.22532/2012, decided on 9.8.2012, wherein it was held as under :-
"In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159, wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically 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.
In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition. Thus, the Special Leave petition is dismissed."
13. In a recent judgment in Civil Appeal No.697 of 2014, titled Indian Institute of Bank & Finance (IIBF) v. Mukul Srivastava, dated 17.1.2014, passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also referred to the judgments reported in Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha (supra), Maharshi // 5 // Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur (supra) and Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Director Health Services, Haryana & Ors., III (2013) CPJ 22 (SC) = 2013 (10) SCC 136 holding that the student, under such circumstances, is not a 'consumer'."
5. In Bihar School Examination Board & Ors. vs. Kundan Kumar & Anr., I (2015) CPJ 97 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission, has observed thus :-
"6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties, so complaint was not maintainable. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in C.A. No.3911 of 2003 Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, VII (2009) SLT 109 = IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC), in which it was observed as under:
"10. The Board is a statutory authority established under the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952. The function of the Board is to conduct school examinations. This statutory function involves holding periodical examinations, evaluating the answer scripts, declaring the results and issuing certificates. The process of holding examinations, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function. It is not possible to divide this function as partly statutory and partly administrative. When the Examination Board conducts an examination in discharge of its statutory function, it does not offer its 'services' to any candidate. Nor does a student who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, hires or avails of any service from the Board for a consideration. On the other hand, a candidate who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, is a person who has undergone a course of study and who requests the Board to test him as to whether he has imbibed sufficient knowledge to be fit to be declared as having successfully completed the said course of education; and if so, determine his position or rank or // 6 // competence vis-à-vis other examinees. The process is not therefore availment of a service by a student, but participation in a general examination conducted by the Board to ascertain whether he is eligible and fit to be considered as having successfully completed the secondary education course. The examination fee paid by the student is not the consideration for availment of any service, but the charge paid for the privilege of participation in the examination.
11. The object of the Act is to cover in its net, services offered or rendered for a consideration. Any service rendered for a consideration is presumed to be a commercial activity in its broadest sense (including professional activity or quasi- commercial activity). But the Act does not intended to cover discharge of a statutory function of examining whether a candidate is fit to be declared as having successfully completed a course by passing the examination. The fact that in the course of conduct of the examination, or evaluation of answer- scripts, or furnishing of mark-sheets or certificates, there may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Board into a service-provider for a consideration, not convert the examinee into a consumer who can make a complaint under the Act. We are clearly of the view that the Board is not a 'service provider' and a student who takes an examination is not a 'consumer' and consequently, complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board.
7. Aforesaid judgment makes it crystal clear that when Examination Board conducts an examination in discharge on its statutory functions involving holding periodical examinations, evaluating the answer scripts, declaring the results and issuing certificates then there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties and, as such, complaint was not maintainable before District Forum. Learned Counsel for the respondent could not place any citation of Hon'ble Apex Court contrary to aforesaid judgment and in such circumstances, revision petition is to be allowed.
// 7 //
6. In Appeal No. 602/2009 Dr. Prashant Babu Kharya Vs. Principal, Raipur Homeopathy Medical College, vide order dated 16.11.2009, this Commission has observed thus :-
"It is clear that in the facts of that case the education was imparted by the College or University and there was deficiency in it. In the facts of the present case, Homeopathy Medical College has got a separate identity, who collected fee for imparting education and performed its duty. University was having a separate identity and it simply conducted examination and awarded degrees as part of its statutory duty. As regards performance of statutory duty of University, it does not fall within the ambit of the word "service", as defined in Consumer Protection Act."
7. In Appeal No. FA/12/622 Umesh Kumar Sahu Vs. Principal, Institute of Technology, Korba & Another & Appeal No.FA/12/660 Principal, Institute of Technology, Korba and another, vide order dated 27.03.2015, this Commission, has observed thus :-
"15. In view of judgments referred above, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the education is not a service and does not fall within the scope of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable since he is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986."
8. On the basis of above cited judgments, it is established that the OPs have not provided any service to the complainant, therefore, the complainant does not come within purview of "consumer" as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is liable to be dismissed summarily at motion stage.
// 8 //
9. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant against the OPs is dismissed summarily at motion stage.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta)
President Member Member
08 /11/2017 08/11/2017 08/11/2017