Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Garg, President;
Mrs. Sushma Tanwar and Mr. T.P. Gupta, Members
INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY—Appellant
versus
INDRAJEET DEVNATH & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal No. 533 of 2003—Decided on 1.3.2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Hawa Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. D.M. Mathur, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the definition of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, the binding nature of prospectus terms, and the principles of fair compensation in cases of service deficiency.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Education Services - 1986, Section 12, Section 15 - The court discussed the definition of a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the binding nature of terms and conditions mentioned in the prospectus. It highlighted the obligation of educational institutions to provide services as per the prospectus and the implications of not fulfilling such obligations. The court also emphasized the principles of fair compensation and the impact of service deficiency on the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant sought admission to a diploma course in Computers in Office Management, expecting course material in Hindi as indicated in the prospectus. However, the material was provided in English, leading to mental and physical agony. The District Forum allowed the complaint, stating deficiency in service by the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the complainant to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, upheld the binding nature of prospectus terms, and affirmed the deficiency in service by the appellants.
Issues: Consumer status, binding nature of prospectus terms, and adequacy of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that students availing education services for consideration are consumers under the Act. It also emphasized the binding nature of prospectus terms and the obligation of institutions to fulfill them. Additionally, the court stressed the need for fair and reasonable compensation in cases of service deficiency.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the District Forum's order and upholding the compensation awarded to the complainant.
Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Garg, President—This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” of 1986") has been filed by the appellants-opposite party against the order dated 1.2.2003 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur-II, Jaipur in Case No. 1272/1999 by which the complaint filed by the complainant-respondent under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 was allowed in the manner that the appellants were directed to pay to the complainant respondent a sum of Rs. 25,000 as compensation for the deficiency in service in supplying course material in English instead of Hindi for Diploma in Computers in Office Management (D.C.O.) Course.
2. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows :
The complainant respondent had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 before the District Forum, Jaipur-II, Jaipur on 7.10.1999 stating inter alia that he sought admission to the course of “Diploma In Computers in Office Management” (DCO) conducted by the appellants and deposited a sum of Rs. 2,800 as fee including registration fee. It was further stated in the complaint that the appellants were under the duty to make available the “course material” printed for DCO programme in Hindi medium and after holding an examination of the “Course” a certificate of “Diploma in Computers in Office Management” was to be awarded to him. It was further stated in the complaint by the complainant respondent that it was informed to him by the appellants that the “course material” for DCO was available in Hindi medium and, therefore, he sought admission and got registration No. 983460634 of the year 1998. It was further stated in the complaint by the complainant respondent that the “course material made available to him was in English medium and inspite of his insistence for supply of the “course material” in Hindi medium it was not made available to him in Hindi medium and, therefore, he suffered mental and physical agony and thus, he claimed compensation under the following heads :
(I)
Mental and Physical agony
Rs.
30,000
(II)
Financial Loss
(i)
potal expenses
Rs.
100
(ii)
cost of litigation
Rs.
1,000
(iii)
fee
Rs.
2,800
(iv)
fare and other expenses
Rs.
1,000
(v)
depirve to study
Rs.
15,000
(vi)
deprive to get departmental promotion
Rs.
38,000
Total :
Rs.
87,900
A reply was filed by the appellants and their case was :
(i) That the complainant respondent was not a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act of 1986.
(ii) That the terms and conditions as mentioend in the prospectus could not be binding on the parties as the information incorporated therein was an indication of the University’s plans on the date of publication of the document (prospecs).
Hence, it was submitted that no interference is called for and the present complaint deserves to be dimmissed.
After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum, Jaipur-II, Jaipur through order dated 1.2.2003 allowed the complaint of the complainant respondent in the manner as indicated above holding inter alia:
(i) That the complainant respondent was a consumer within the menaing of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act of 1986.
(ii) That since in the prospectus it was specifically mentioned that the course would be available in Hindi also apart from English, therefore, by not making available the course material in Hindi, there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.
Aggrieved from the said order dated 1.2.2003 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur-II, Jaipur this appeal has been filed by the appellants opposite party.
3. In this appeal, the following submissions have been made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants:
(i) That the complainant respondent was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act of 1986.
(ii) That the terms and conditions of the prospectus are not binding and, therefore, if there was any deviation from the terms and conditions incorporated in the prosp
