Back
JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Gurusharan Sharma, President, Kalyani Kar Roy, Member
G.L.A. COLLEGE AND ANOTHER - Appellants
Versus
KUMARI RAJNI SINGH AND ANOTHER - Respondents
Decided on : 13-10-2008
Mr. Saket Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate, Mr. J.S. Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent
Education services for consideration fall within the ambit of 'service' under the Consumer Protection Act, and a student is considered a consumer.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Education Services - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(g) - Section 2(1)(d) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(g) - Section 2(1)(d) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(g) - Section 2(1)(d) - Section 2(1)(r)
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a student of G.L.A. College, deposited the required fee for an examination but her examination form was not sent to the Council, and she could not appear in the examination. She filed a complaint claiming compensation for loss and damage to her academic career.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the college's failure to send the examination form constituted deficiency in service, and the complainant was entitled to compensation. The court reduced the compensation amount awarded by the District Forum from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 25,000.
Issues: Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum over education services, responsibility for sending examination forms, and entitlement to compensation for deficiency in service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that education services for consideration fall within the ambit of 'service' under the Consumer Protection Act, and a student is considered a consumer. The college was held responsible for the deficiency in service, leading to the complainant's entitlement to compensation.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed in part, and the compensation amount was reduced to Rs. 25,000.
ORDER
Gurusharan Sharma, President - These two appeals (FA No. 261 of 2006 and FA No. 607 of 2007) arise out of a common judgment dated 20.6.2006, passed by Palamau District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Daltonganj, in Consumer Complaint No. 25 of 2006 and, therefore, have been heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment.
2. Originally the Principal, the Controller of Examination and the Cashier of G.L.A. College, Daltonganj filed FA No. 261 of 2006 and subsequently on behalf of Controller of Examination, appellant No. 2 therein a prayer was made to transpose him as respondent with a liberty to file separate appeal as there was conflict of interest between him and the Principal of the college in view of the stand taken in the matter. Hence, on 28.3.2007 name of appellant No. 2 from the cause title of FA No. 261 of 2006 was deleted and he was transposed as respondent No. 2. On the same day Tripurari Sahar, the Controller of Examination of G.L.A. College, Daltonganj filed separate FA No. 607 of 2007.
3. The complainant was a regular student of G.L.A. College, Daltonganj. She completed the session and became eligible for appearing in I.Sc. final examination, 2006 to be conducted by Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. On 28.11.2005 she deposited the required fee of Rs. 1,226.00 vide Receipt No. 5017, but her examination form was not sent to the Council and she could not appear in the said examination. She filed Consumer Complaint No. 25 of 2006 against the Principal, Controller of Examination and Cashier of G.L.A. College and claimed compensation of Rs. 2,20,000.00 to be paid to her for loss and damage to her academic career for one year.
4. The Principal, Controller of Examination and Cashier of G.L.A. College, Daltonganj jointly filed written statement and contested the complaint, inter alia, on the ground that Education did not come within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, the District Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, that it was duty of examination department of the College headed by the Controller of Examination to send the form to the Council for preparation of Admit Card, etc. for the candidate to sit in the examination. Further the Principal had already displayed notice on 9.2.2006 (the examination was scheduled to be held from 21.2.2006) for collection of Admit Cards and for giving information, if Admit Card was not received for any reason so that necessary steps could be taken by the Principal in this regard well before commencement of examination. The complainant did not inform the Principal or the Examination Department. The opposite parties much less the Principal was not responsible for sending the form to the Intermediate Council.
5. The District Consumer Forum, on the ratio of a decision of the National Consumer Commission, New Delhi, in Tilak Raj of Chandigarh v. Haryana School Education Board, Bhiwani, 1991 (2) CPR 309 (NC), held that the college imparting education for consideration would come squarely within the ambit of 'service under the 1986 Act. Accordingly the complainant was held to be a consumer and the complaint to be maintainable. It was further held that the Principal of the College being head of the College was responsible for any omission or commission of its employees. It cannot be said that Controller of Examination of the college alone was responsible for not sending the examination form of the complainant to the Council. The District Forum further observed that notice dated 9.2.2006, if any was of no help to the complainant because nothing could have been done at that stage. Such notice was helpful only to those students, whose examination forms were already forwarded to the Council, but for some other reason the Admit cards were not issued to them.
6. The opposite parties aforesaid were held deficient in service and were directed jointly and severally to pay Rs. one lac as compensation to the complainant. Further direction
