State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chairman, Abohar Polytechnic College vs Hardeep Singh on 6 February, 2014
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 994 of 2012
Date of institution: 30.7.2012
Date of Decision : 6.2.2014
1. Chairman, Abohar Polytechnic College, Kala Tibba, Sitto Road,
Abohar, Tehsil Abohar.
2. Principal, Abohar Polytechnic College, Kala Tibba, Sitto Road,
Abohar, Tehsil Abohar
.....Appellants/OP Nos. 1 & 2
Versus
1. Hardeep Singh aged 35 years S/o Major Singh, R/o Village
Mammu Khera, Tehsil and District Fazilka.
....Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. The Registrar, PSBTE & IT, Plot No. 1-A, Sector 36-A,
Chandigarh.
.....Respondent No.2/OP No. 3
Argued By:-
For the appellants : Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Sh. Kunal Siag, Advocate
For respondent No.2 : Ex.-parte
First Appeal against the order dated 23.5.2012
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member
FIRST APPEAL NO. 994 OF 2012 2
ORDER
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member The appellants/Ops No. 1 & 2 (hereinafter called "the Ops No. 1 & 2") have filed the present appeal against the order dated 23.5.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur(hereinafter called "the District Forum") in consumer complaint No.34 dated 24.1.2012 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed with the direction to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses and also directed to refund the entire fee and other charges received by the Ops No. 1 & 2 from the parents of the complainant.
2. The complaint was filed by the complainant that his minor son Jagdeep Singh had taken admission with the Ops in Civil Engineering, 1st Semester and deposited all the funds vide receipt Nos. 00002448 dated 4.7.2011, receipt Nos. 00002716 and 00002717 dated 9.8.2011 and receipt No. 00005928 dated 16.11.2011 but no Roll number was issued to his son by OP No. 2. When the complainant wanted to know about the reason, OP No. 2 told the complainant that registration (OMR) form could not be submitted with the Board, which was the duty of OP No. 2, therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. but the Ops did not give any heed to the request of the complainant. Then he approached OP No. 3 with the written application dated 23.11.2011 with the request to issue the roll number to his son, who demanded record from Op No. 2 but OP No. 2 refused to give any record then he got issued legal notice dated 12.12.2011 against the Ops. Hence, FIRST APPEAL NO. 994 OF 2012 3 the complaint with the direction to the Ops to pay Rs. 1,92,275/-, Rs. 1 lac as compensation on account of wastage of one precious year of his son, refund fee of Rs. 31,275/- as well as tuition fee deposited, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. Ops No. 1 & 2, who in their reply have taken preliminary objections that the respondents are running their College under the supervision and control of respondent No. 3 and as per the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Bihar School Examination Board Versus Suresh Prasad Singha", 2010 (1) CLT page 255 and "Maharishi Dayanand University Versus Surjit Kaur", 2010(iv) CLT page 538, the complainant does not fall within the definition of the consumer nor the respondents are service providers and the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab has relied upon the said judgments, therefore, the complainant does not fall within the definition of 'consumer', there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, student notice dated 16.8.2011 was pasted on the Notice Board adding 1st and 3rd semester students are advised to deposit Rs. 1350/- Board processing fee in the College before 25.8.2011 and the documents like matriculate certificate, +2 Vocational Certificate and other Photo etc. should also be submitted in the College Office otherwise their admission may not be confirmed. Otherwise concerned student are also informed to collect and deposit their concerned document in OMR form in time and last date of receiving the said document was 25.8.2011, which was lateron extended to 31.10.2011. Son of the FIRST APPEAL NO. 994 OF 2012 4 complainant received his OMR form on 23.11.2011 and grand-father of Jagdeep Singh had requested to take the form by hand and taking the lenient view, the respondent give the letter of request to consider the case of Jagdeep Singh addressed to respondent No. 2, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent; the complaint has been filed with ulterior motive to harass as the complainant has no right, locus-standi or cause of action to file this complaint; the complaint is not legally maintainable; the complainant has not approached the Hon'ble Forum with clean hands; complaint is false, frivolous, baseless and vexatious, therefore, the same be dismissed. On merits, it has been again stated that the father of the complainant approached the respondents on 26.11.2011 by way of moving the application whereas it was duty of the complainant as well as his son to collect the ORM form and submit with the respondents within time but the complainant and his son did not do so, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and ultimately, it was stated that there is no merit in the complaint and the same be dismissed.
4. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, ORM Form of three students Ex. C-2, application form-2011 Ex. C-3, examination form Ex. C-4, receipts Ex. C-5 to C-8, postal receipts Ex. C-9, notice Ex. C-10, notice Ex. C-11, matriculation certificate Ex. C-12, affidavit of Major Singh Ex. C-13. On the other hand, the opposite parties had FIRST APPEAL NO. 994 OF 2012 5 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sanjeev Middha, Chairman Ex. R- 1, affidavit of S.K. Mangal, Principal Ex. R-2, affidavit of Dr. A.S. Arunachala, Registrar Ex. R-3, student notice Ex. R-4, cut off date dt. 21.10.11 Ex. R-5, application form-2011 Ex. R-6, matriculation certificate Ex. R-7, OMR Form of three students Ex. R-8, letter dt. 26.11.11 Ex. R-9, reply to notice Ex. R-10, postal receipts Ex. R-11 to R-13.
6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written statement filed by the OP, evidence and documents brought on the record, it was observed by the learned District Forum that examination fee of Rs. 1,350/- was deposited in time and the College Authorities have failed to submit the examination form and OMR form of the complainant in time to OP No. 3, as a result of that a valuable academic year of the son of the complainant has been spoiled, however, there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 3, accordingly, the complaint is allowed against Ops No. 1 & 2 as stated above.
7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellants/opposite parties have filed the present appeal.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No. 1 Sh. Kunal Siag, Advocate.
9. In the grounds of appeal, it has been alleged that the Hon'ble District Forum illegally allowed the complaint without taking into consideration that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Bihar School Examination Board Versus Suresh Prasad FIRST APPEAL NO. 994 OF 2012 6 Singha", 2010 (1) CLT page 255 and "Maharishi Dayanand University Versus Surjit Kaur", 2010(iv) CLT page 538 and during the course of arguments, another judgment "P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors.", 2012(3) C.P.C. 615 (S.C.) was referred and in these judgments, it has been observed that in the education matters the College and Universities are not service providers, therefore, education matter does not fall within the domain of the Consumer Fora.
10. No contrary judgment has been cited by the counsel for respondent No. 1, therefore, in case the matter in dispute does not fall within the domain of the Consumer Fora then the learned District Forum could not have allowed the complaint, therefore, we find merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed: the order passed by the learned District Forum is set-aside. The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed with the liberty to respondent No. 1/complainant to agitate his matter before the appropriate Forum.
11. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 5.2.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
12. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and Rs. 40,000/- in compliance with the order dated 12.9.2012. These amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant No. 1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum. FIRST APPEAL NO. 994 OF 2012 7
13. The appeal 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 6, 2014. (Harcharan Singh Guram) as Member