Sankaranarayanan vs S. Marimuthu

THE complainant''s case is that his daughter was called for counselling in Anna University for admission under special reservation category on 1.9.1999. But, the opposite party, stating that the reserved seats under this category were over, allotted a payment seat to the complainant''s daughter. THE complainant''s daughter paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards admission fee at the time of counselling. THE complainant came to know that two out of five seats were given to ineligible candidates. THE complainant collected sufficient evidence to the fraud committed and he filed a writ petition and after two months, the verdict was rendered in complainant''s favour ordering the Secretary and DOTE to give a seat to the complainant''s daughter. THE complainant having undergone an open-heart surgery, had been put to much mental and physical strain. THE complainant, therefore, filed the complaint.

THE opposite party filed a version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. THE complainant is not a consumer. THEre is no locus standi. THE opposite party being an educational institution, is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act. THE complainant ought to have obtained all reliefs in the High Court itself. THE complaint is barred by the principle of res judicata. THE complainant''s daughter secured only 165.64 marks out of 300 in the qualifying examination. She applied under special category of special reservation for "Inter-caste marriage". She was placed 37th in the merit list. THE opposite party has an updation system. If such updation of applications is not allowed, it would result in injustice to those who secured higher marks. At the time of counselling, in the updation counter one Mr. B. Karthik brought to the notice that he had applied under the special category of special reservation for "inter-caste marriage" and that his name did not find a place in the list of special reservation. It was found out that he failed to shade in the computer coding sheet and, therefore, his name was included in the list. After verification of records, his name was also included in the merit list under special reservation. Similarly one G.M. Akila who had applied under special category of special reservation of inter-caste marriage was also not included in the list. THE said Akila and Karthik had secured 225.39 and 193.39 marks respectively in the qualifying examination as compared to the marks of the complainant''s daughter. THE complainant''s daughter filed W.P. No. 15641/99 before the Hon''ble High Court and on the ground that the selecting authorities cannot overlook the instructions given to the candidates, the writ petition was allowed. THE opposite party has filed a writ appeal and the same is pending before the Hon''ble High Court. This issue has not become final. THE opposite party is not liable for any bona fide procedural decision taken in the larger interest of students. THEre is no mala fide on the part of the opposite party. Pursuant to the order of the High Court, the complainant''s daughter was offered admission in Alagappa College of Engineering, Karaikudi. THE sum of Rs. 1,000/- was repaid to her. Uncharitable, offensive and derogatory language is used by the complainant which have to be expunged. THE opposite party prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs. The lower Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 500/- as costs. Hence the present appeal.

The complainant''s daughter was subsequently admitted in Alagappa College of Engineering and now it is stated that she has completed the course and also is employed at present. It is also stated that the writ appeal preferred against the order of the Single Judge in W.P. No. 15641/99 was dismissed confirming the order of the learned Single Judge and the S.L.P. to the Supreme Court was also dismissed. Now in the above background, we have to consider the case of the opposite party. A reading of the order passed in the writ petition shows the writ petition was allowed on the ground that the University cannot overlook the conditions laid down by it or the norms prescribed for selection.

THE complainant does not say how and in what manner there is deficiency in service. He has stated that he has collected sufficient evidence of fraud committed by the opposite party. Those materials are not placed before the Court. It is also not known whether the complainant has collected those evidence only as against the institution viz., Tamil Nadu Engineering Admission or against the person who was then acting as its Secretary. When he filed the writ petition, he has not chosen to mention the name of the opposite party. It is simply stated as the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Engineering Admission without mentioning the name of the Secretary, whereas now the complaint is filed against Dr. Sankaranarayanan, Secretary to the Tamil Nadu Engineering Admission. If the complainant''s case is to be taken as one based upon the allegation of "fraud", then the Consumer Forum cannot go into that aspect. For, the question of "fraud" is a matter to be proved before the proper Forum and the same cannot fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. Except for making this vague allegation in paragraph 2, there is no other averment made in the complaint stating the nature of deficiency or how there is deficiency and who caused the deficiency. Therefore, as it is, there is absolutely no foundation at all for the edifice of the complaint. The lower Forum held that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- has been paid to the opposite party and therefore there is a money consideration between the parties to provide educational benefits and hence the complainant is a consumer. The complainant has produced a DD towards the admission fee at the time of counselling. It states that this payment will be adjusted with the tuition fee at the time of admission. Therefore, what was paid was only an initial payment and not the fee for admission. Even otherwise, according to the opposite party the same has been refunded. Moreover, the complainant was admitted pursuant to the order of the High Court in a writ petition. Therefore, the purpose for which the payment was effected for admission has been accomplished and, therefore, the payment of Rs. 1,000/- cannot be cited as a service rendered. A reading of the definition of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act would go to show that the present action cannot come under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. Assuming that the complaint can be maintained, the complainant''s daughter sought admission into an Engineering College under a special category. She was not selected under that category, but she was allotted a payment seat. The question whether she was eligible for being accommodated in that special category of special reservation is a question that has to be decided by the authorities who were in-charge of admission. If for any reason they have decided against her, the complainant''s daughter, then, the only remedy open to the complainant is to challenge the same, if according to her the failure to select her is illegal, arbitrary or opposed to norms, before the proper Forum and that has been done by the complainant by filing a writ petition. Therefore, once having filed a writ and succeeded, there remains no vestige of any legal character to the complainant to approach this Forum. The refusal to provide a seat under the special reservation category was either justified or not cannot be, therefore, once again gone into by this Forum. Therefore, we are satisfied that the complaint is misconceived and vexatious.

IN the result, this appeal is allowed, but in the circumstances, without costs, setting aside the order passed by the lower Forum. The complaint will stand dismissed but without costs. Appeal allowed.