B R CHOUDHARY vs PUNJAB TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY PTU

MR. Justice K. C. Gupta, President-This appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 19. 11. 2007 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum) vide which their complaint was dismissed with no order as to costs.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that appellant No. 2 (complainant No. 2) Ms. Pooja Choudhary after passing her B. Sc. (Medical) from Punjab University, Chandigarh, opted for the course of M. Sc. Clinical Microbiology through distance education offered by respondent No. 1 (Punjab Technical University) through its authorised distance education centre-respondent No. 2 in the year 2002. The course comprised of four semesters of six months each and first semester was to commence in September, 2002 and she was supposed to complete the course in the month of August, 2004. It was next averred that as per request of appellant No. 2, the Institute of Medical technology (IMT) respondent No. 2 enrolled her in the month of September, 2002 in the above said course and accepted a sum of Rs. 49,000 as total fee on different dates. Copies of the receipts are Annexures C-2 to C-4. However, respondents did not supply the detailed marks sheet of the third semester which was declared in March, 2004 on one pretext or the other. She even completed the entire course in the month of September, 2004 but after completion of the above said course, she was not even then supplied with the detailed marks sheet pertaining to the third semester and further did not supply M. Sc. degree which was also completed in the months of September/october, 2004 , after the declaration of the result of the final semester. She had approached respondents several times and even appellant No. 1 personally visited the respondent No. 1 on various dates and ultimately detailed marks sheet of third semester was supplied on 22. 8. 2006 and final degree of M. Sc. on 5. 9. 2006.

Alleging deficiency in service, complaint was filed.

RESPONDENT No. 1 in its reply stated that the practical internal award for the 3rd semester of appellant No. 2 was received in August, 2006 and as such result was declared soon after the receipt of award from respondent No. 2. The degree certificate was also issued immediately thereafter. It admitted other facts. Respondent No. 2 in its reply stated that it was acting through Drish Educational Services and it had further sent practical internal award of 3rd semester to respondent No. 1 through Drish Educational Services in February, 2004. Whatever delay had been caused that was at the instance of Drish Educational Services which had not been made a party. It next stated that it was only learning agency and all the correspondence was routed through and managed by Drish Educational Services. It next stated that Drish Educational Services, Mohali was the regional agency. It further stated that there was no proof of appellant seeking employment in the institution of Microbiology Technology, Sector-39, Chandigarh. It further stated that it had nothing to do with the preparation of results and detailed marks sheet which was entire responsibility of respondent No. 2 , therefore, it was not liable to pay any loss. It also stated that it did not know as to for what reasons respondent No. 1 had delayed the detailed marks sheet but however, admitted that the detailed marks sheet for third semester was issued to appellant No. 2 by respondent No. 1 on 22. 8. 2006 vide Annexure C-6 and the final degree was issued by respondent No. 1 on 30. 8. 2006 vide Annexure C-7. It denied other allegations and stated that the complaint should be dismissed.

THE copy of the complaint Annexure A-1 which is placed on file shows that it was verified on 16. 10. 2006. The degree certificate for which examination was held in September, 2004 was not delivered till September, 2006. The deficiency if any was with respect to supply of detailed marks card for the third semester which was held in the month of March, 2004. Since, present complaint has been filed beyond a period of two years as envisaged under Section 24a of the Consumer Protection Act, so, it is time barred. It has been observed by Hon''ble National Commission in Deputy Registrar (Colleges) and Anr. v. Ruchika Jain and Ors. , III (2006) CPJ 343 (NC)=2007 (1) CPC 226 in para-42 at page 276 as under: "hence, we arrive at the conclusion that: (i) Performance of statutory duties by a University or college in laying down criteria/rules/regulations for conducting examinations, eligibility criteria for permitting the student to appear in the examination or declaration of the results of a student who appeared in the examination and such other activities, cannot be considered to be hiring of service for fees. Those are statutory functions not depending upon the contract between the parties. The services which are to be rendered on the basis of the statutory provisions by the university/educational institution cannot be construed as rendering of service for consideration in the form of fees.

(ii) Giving of admission to the students in a school/college/institution/university by recovering fees and in such cases if there is any dispute with regard to the validity of such admission or illegality, irregularity committed by such institution in giving admission, such dispute would be covered under the Consumer Protection Act,1986. This is on the basis of contract between the parties i. e. students and the institution, and is based on the consideration (fees) for rendering education. Such students on the basis of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) read with Section 2 (1) (o) would be hirer of service for consideration and hence would be consumer. Further, deficiency as defined under Section 2 (1) (g) would be apparent as this would be a fault/shortcoming in nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law.

Therefore, according to the said observations of the National Commission, the rules or regulations for conducting examination, eligibility criteria for permitting the student to appear in the examination or declaration of the results of a student who had appeared in the examination and such other activities cannot be considered to be hiring of service for fees because these are statutory functions not depending upon the contract between the parties. Therefore, services to be rendered on the basis of statutory provisions by the university/educational institution cannot be construed as rendering of service for consideration in the form of fees. Consequently the supply of detailed marks sheet on the basis of declaration of result of the 3rd semester and further the late supply of M. Sc. degree in September, 2006 are statutory functions because allegation of respondent No. 1 university is that it had not received the practical internal award for 3rd semester from the centre concerned and as such the detailed marks sheet of 3rd semester was not supplied and consequently result of the last and final semester could not be declared and when practical internal award was received, then thereafter the result was declared soon and M. Sc. degree was supplied.

RESPONDENT No. 1 university had stated that it had received practical internal award for the 3rd semester from respondent No. 2 in August, 2006 but respondent No. 2 in the written reply stated that it had sent practical internal award of appellant No. 2 through Drish Educational Services which was regional agency in February, 2004 and if there was any delay, then it was on the part of Drish Educational Services.

NOW it is disputed fact whether the practical internal award which was sent by respondent No. 2 in February, 2004 through Drish Educational Services was further forwarded to PTU in February, 2004 or in August, 2006 as the university had stated that it had received the practical internal award in August, 2006. There is no evidence to decide this matter as to when the university had received the practical internal award. Since, the university performed the statutory duty in declaration of the result and supplying the detailed marks sheet for awarding degree, so, appellant No. 2 is not a consumer qua respondent No. 1 with respect to services. It is not the case that there is no dispute with regard to validity of admission or illegality, irregularity committed by such institution i. e. respondent No. 2 in giving admission and if it were so then dispute had covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, we hold that appellant No. 2 is not a consumer. Consequently, appeal is dismissed in limine.

Copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal dismissed.