Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
G.F. College through ITS Principal —Petitioner
versus
Ankit Srivastava and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.857 of 2017
Decided on 18.12.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Niranjan Sahu, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2:Mr. Ajai Kumar, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
When there is no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission which calls for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction, the same is liable to be dismissed.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 – Revision – Complainant / Respondent No.1 took admission in the BCA course run by the petitioner college under self-finance scheme – As the respondent was not having more than 45% marks in the intermediate examination, his examination form was not accepted by the University - However on the request made by the candidate and the college, he was provisionally allowed to appear in the examination - However, his result was not declared by the University – Aggrieved with this, complaint was filed seeking refund of the fees paid along with interest, costs etc., which was allowed – Appeal filed was dismissed – Hence, the present revision - Heard the counsels, perused the documents, record etc., - O.P is affiliated to the University and hence they are fully aware of the rules of admission – Knowing fully well that the complainant is not possessing requisite marks for taking admission, O.P gave a seat and requested the University authorities to permit him to write the exam which amounts to deficiency in service – As there is no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission, the revision petition is dismissed - No order as to costs.
Result: The revision petition is dismissed - No order as to costs.
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner G.F college against the order
dated 6th January 2017 passed by the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow ( in short ‘the State Commission’) in F.A. No. 2115 of 2010.
2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of the present revision petition are that respondent No.1 took admission in the BCA course run by the petitioner college under self-finance scheme. His examination form was not accepted by the University as he was not having more than 45% marks in the intermediate examination. However on the request made by the candidate and the college, he was provisionally allowed to appear in the examination. However, his result was not declared. In this situation he filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum. The complaint was allowed vide order dated 31st May 2010 and the District Forum directed the opposite party No.1 to refund Rs.25,000/- as fees taken from the candidate along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of litigation as Rs.1000/-. The OP No.1 preferred an appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merits vide its order dated 6th January 2017.
3. Hence the present revision petition.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that both the fora below have not observed the basic law on the subject that a student is not a consumer and an educational institution is not a service provider and therefore the complaint filed by the respondent No.1 was not maintainable before the fora below. In support of his argument, learned counsel referred to the case of Regional Institute of Cooperative Management Vs. Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, RP No.638 of 2014, decided on 02 May, 2014 (NC), wherein this Commission has allowed the revision petition filed by the petitioner Institute and the orders of fora below were set aside on the basis of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159 and Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 483. In the present case, also the dispute is between student and an educational institution. Hence, the complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum and the orders passed by the fora below are not valid in the eyes of law and need to be set aside.
5. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the form was rejected by the University and college is not responsible for the same. Rather, college supported the student and got him issued provisional admit card which allowed him to appear in the examination. However finally the university did not declare the result of the complainant. Therefore even if there is some deficiency, the same can only be attributed to the university and not to the petitioner college.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 stated that the college took admission fully knowing well the rules of the university. However, the college did not inform the complainant about this rule that students with less marks than 45% cannot appear in the examination. The complainant had to waste full one year in this process and therefore complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties and particularly the refund of the fees paid to the opposite party No.1.
7. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. At the first place, it is seen that both the fora below have given concurrent finding of facts and the facts cannot be reassessed by this Commission at the stage of revision petition in the light of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, wherein the following has been observed:-
“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Se
