Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Gaurav Govind Tripathi —Petitioner
versus
Manager, Divya Prem Sewa Mission and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.488 of 2019
(Against the Order dated 07/12/2018 in Appeal No. 224/2018 of the State Commission Uttaranchal)
Decided on 4.4.2019
For the Petitioner:Ms. Meenakshi Midha, Mr. Kapil Midha and Mr. Bhavya Lakhware, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINTS
1. If no prayer is made either in the complaint or in the appeal, it cannot be considered directly in RP.
2. NC cannot give direction to the University to hold practical examination again.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) – Education-fee for transfer from the Respondent No.1 Institute to Respondent no.2 University deposited with Respondent no.1 – The name of the appellant did not appear for examination, as no such fee was transferred – DF allowed interim application and allowed the complainant to appear for examination. The complainant could not appear for practical examination. DF dismissed the complaint as being infructuous as the complainant had given examination. State Commission also dismissed appeal. Hence, Revision.
Held, the Consumer Fora cannot give order to the educational institutions to hold examinations. However, liberty granted to the complainant to approach University, and it was expected that University will take decision as per its Rules. (Para 16)
Result: Revision dismissed.
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Gaurav Govind Tripathi against the order dated 07.12.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.224/2018.
2. The case of the petitioner /complainant is that he was student of B.A. III year and he had deposited his fee with respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 was to transfer the same to respondent No.2 University. The petitioner’s name did not appear in the list of candidates who were allowed to write the examination of BA III year. It was alleged that the respondent No.1 did not transfer the fee paid by him to respondent No.2 in time. Accordingly, he filed a consumer complaint bearing No.384/2015 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar, (in short ‘the District Forum’) and the District Forum vide its order dated 28.08.2015 passed an interim order and allowed the petitioner to appear in the examination from 01.09.2015. Accordingly, the admit card No.12029254 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.2, wherein all the subjects were mentioned. The petitioner appeared in all the examinations except for the subject code No.BA KK 302. The petitioner could not give practical examination of subject code BA KK 302 because the same was organised on 21.08.2015. It is the case of the petitioner that when he contacted the University on 20.08.2015, he was informed that permission cannot be given to him to appear in the practical examination on 21.08.2015 as he has not deposited the fees. However, in the morning of 21.8.2015 at about 9 ‘O’ clock, he received a phone call that he can appear in the pratical examination on 21.08.2015 which was to start at 11 a.m.. It was not possible for him to appear in that examination as he would not have reached by then. The matter was raised before the District Forum, however, the District Forum passed the final order in the complaint on 03.10.2018 wherein the complaint was dismissed as having become infructuous because the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination of BA III year.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the same was dismissed vide its order dated 07.12.2018.
4. Hence the present revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. She stated that the District Forum should have appreciated that respondent No.2 has not allowed complainant to appear in the practical examination of subject code BA KK 302 and therefore, whole purpose of interim order dated 28.8.2015 was frustrated. Even after giving all the examinations after 01.09.2015, the complainant could not get the degree of BA just because he was not allowed to appear in the practical examination. It was further argued that even the State Commission has not considered this aspect and has confirmed the order of the District Forum on another ground that the complainant being a student was not a consumer and the respondents being educational institutions were not the service providers. Learned counsel argued that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is meant for providing better protection to the consumer and the whole purposes of filing the complaint has been frustrated because the District Forum or the State Commission have not considered the grievance of the complainant that inspite of appearing in all the examinations of BA III year, he is not able to get the degree because the respondents have not allowed to take part in the practical examination and the District Forum failed to direct the respondents to take the practical examination again for the complainant.
6. On the legal aspect raised by the State Commission that a student is not a consumer and an educational institution is not a service provider in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159: (2010) 5 Supreme 6
