Back
UTTRAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Irshad Hussain, President and Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
GOVIND BALLABH PANT UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY - Appellant
Versus
SUMAN NAINWAL - Respondent
First Appeal No. 72 of 2006
Decided on : 24-05-2010
Mr. L.D. Bhatia, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Rohit Bathla, Advocate, for the Respondent
Students seeking admission are considered consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and are entitled to file consumer complaints for grievances related to admission and course fees.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Consumer Complaint - The court held that the complainant, as a student seeking admission, is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and is entitled to file a consumer complaint for refund of course fee and incidental expenses.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant appealed against the rejection of their preliminary objection that the complainant was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant, seeking refund of course fee and incidental expenses after not continuing with studies, is a consumer under the Act, and the District Forum was justified in not accepting the appellant's contention.
Issues: The issue was whether the complainant, as a student seeking admission, is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted that while universities/educational institutions do not render service to students during examinations, the activity regarding admission is for consideration, making the student/applicant a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.
Final Decision: The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed, with the direction for the District Forum to decide the consumer complaint expeditiously.
ORDER
Irshad Hussain, President - This is an appeal by the opposite party of consumer complaint No. 75 of 2003 pending before the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar against the order dated 29.3.2005, whereby the preliminary objection of the appellant that the complainant not being a consumer within the purview of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, her complaint was not legally maintainable, was rejected.
2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully considered their submissions in the light of the facts and legal aspects of the case. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant reiterated the preliminary objection raised in the case and urged that the order passed by the District Forum was against the legal aspects of the case. We see no merit in this argument because the complainant basically filed the consumer complaint for refund of the course fee deposited by her with incidental expenses, damages etc. on the ground that she had not continued with her studies in the course allotted to her after counselling. It is now well settled that Universities/Educational Institutions/ Education Boards discharge statutory function while conducting examinations and do not render service to the student for consideration and for that purpose, these are not service providers and the student appearing in examination is not a consumer, who may file a consumer complaint before a Consumer Fora for redressal of his/her grievance. However, activity regarding admission is for consideration and the student/applicant is a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Deputy Registrar (Colleges) and Another v. Ruchika Jain, (2006) 3 CPJ 343 (NC), and in the matter of Surya Prakash Mahapatra v. Controller of Exams, Sambalpur University and Others, 2008 CTJ 419 (CP) (NCDRC). Considering this legal aspect of the matter, the District Forum was justified in not accepting the contention raised by the appellant-University and rightly held that the complainant being a consumer within the purview of the provisions of the Act, was entitled to file the consumer complaint, which need to be decided on merit according to law.
4. In view of above, the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. The consumer complaint being an old one, it is expected that the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar shall decide the consumer complaint according to law expeditiously. No order as to costs.
