SIDDHARTH CHAPLOT vs ICFAI UNIVERSITY & ANR.

The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 13.04.2009 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur in Appeal no. 1621 of 2008.

The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner approached the respondent no. 2 for taking admission in MBA under the special placement

scheme. Respondent no. 2 asked him to deposit an amount of Rs.57,628/-. The petitioner paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- through draft and the remaining amount of Rs.47,628/- was to be paid in instalments for which he issued 12 cheques to the respondent no. 2. After this the respondent gave him an enrolment number, on 10/11/2005 along with books and permission to write the exam. When the results were declared the petitioner''s result was withheld and the reason given was that the petitioner has not deposited the fees. According to the appellant the respondent has not presented the cheques before the Bank despite there being no mistake in the cheques. Hence, the petitioner has filed the complaint for declaration of April 2006 MBA results, returning the encashed cheques and damages of Rs.50,000/- and payment of other expenses.

The respondents in their reply to the complaint dated 25.09.2006 stated that the petitioner promised them that he will get issued and collect the MICR cheques and deposit the crossed MICR cheques with the respondent, therefore, cheques were not presented to the bank. The respondent has also stated that the petitioner at the time of admission was informed that the non MICR cheques presented by him would be taken but asked him to obtain the MICR cheques and deposit the same with the respondents for presenting to the Bank. The respondents have also stated that after the entire dues are deposited the results would be declared which was according to the rules therefore, the complaint be dismissed.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajasthan (''the District Forum'') vide its order dated 06.08.2008 after hearing both the parties accepted the contentions of the petitioner and observed that: There is no debate as far as the appellants appearing in the April 2006 exam is concerned; After reading the complaint two cheques have been deposited and the remaining 10 cheques amount has been mentioned as a result of which the result has been withheld; The reasons for which the cheques have not been cleared have not been explained in the complaint;

As far as the payment of Rs.39,690/- is concerned, the appellant is not at fault because two cheques have been cleared in the month of October and November so the earlier cheques could also have been cleared;

After returning the un-cleared 10 cheques to the appellant, he will pay the remaining amount of Rs.39,690/- through DD after which the respondent will declare the results'' On the cheques which the respondent did not clear in time, the respondent will pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as complaint expenses.

The District Forum gave the following order:

"Hence, after summarizing the complaint, the complaint against the opposite party is accepted and it is ordered that the opposite party within 1 month will return 10 un-cleared cheques which are in possession of the opposite party to the complainant or present them to the Bench. Within 15 days of that the complainant will present a DD of Rs.39,690/- to the opposite party and one month after that the opposite party will declare the April 2006 result of MBA of the complainant. For the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite

party they will pay the complainant Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as expenses within 1 month. The total amount of Rs.6,000/- will be deducted from the demand draft of the fee amount of Rs.39,690/- and the remaining amount of Rs.33,690/- will be paid by the complainant to the opposite party as demand draft".

Not satisfied with the decision the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission for an enhancement in compensation.

The State Commission while allowing the appeal vide its order dated 13.04.2009, enhanced the compensation from Rs.5,000 to Rs.40,000/- and confirmed the rest of the order of the District Forum. While doing so the State Commission has held that: "Apart from this when the respondent received payment of two cheques out of 12 given by the appellant, to state that the cheques could not be cleared because they were not MICR is not worth believing because it was the responsibility of the respondent to intimate the appellant that there is a mistake in the cheque. To say that the cheques were not MICR and there was a mistake in the cheques and therefore, they could not be realised is wrong. Hence, by withholding the result of the appellant by the respondent shows deficiency on part of the respondent due to which the appellant has suffered unnecessary problems. During the arguments the Advocate of the appellant stated that the appellant will pay the respondent Rs.39,690/- only once the earlier cheques are returned back to the appellant. Counsel for the respondent states that he is ready to return the cheques to the appellant. The appellant presented a letter dated 22.06.2009 by the in which the respondent had stated that "on receipt of the replacement from you, the discrepant/ invalid cheques will be cancelled at our end. However, the cheques cannot be returned to you, as the same has to be retained in our records for future reference".

Now the question of compensation arises. In this case the District Court has awarded the appellant Rs.5,000/- because the respondent did not clear the cheques on time which was deficiency in service on their part and they did not declare the result of the appellant due to which the appellant''s entire year was wasted and he had to unnecessarily face problems. Therefore, seeing all the facts and circumstances of the case the amount awarded by the District Forum is less and Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the appellant to get due justice".

Hence, the present revision petition.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the District Forum and the State Commission both have erred in directing the petitioner to pay Rs.39,690/- to the respondents as balance fee as much as the petitioner never sought for continuation of the course with the respondents and only demanded the paid fee back along with compensation from the respondents. The District Forum and the State Commission both by passing the order directing the petitioner to pay the balance fee to the respondents has in fact compelled the petitioner to pay the balance fee for the course which the petitioner neither intended to pursue nor sought from the District Forum or the State Commission and thus both the fora have acted in exercise of jurisdiction illegally and with the material irregularity, therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has stated that the results had been withheld because the petitioner/ complainant had failed to pay the fees due. He had been told at the time of admission that the cheques given by him were non MICR cheques and hence, could not be encashed and that they should be replaced by MICR cheques. He was requested to pay the balance fee and results would be declared.

We have considered the rival contentins and gone through the record. It is apparent from the case that the respondents are willing to declare the results after the fees due are paid as also abide by the order of the State Commission. Petitioner/ complainant wants the order of the State Commission executed to the extent of directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.39,690/- with the respondents as remaining course fee to be set aside. This appears to be a case when the petitioner/ complainant first took admission in MBA in Distance Learning Programme of the respondent no. 2. Admittedly, he realised from his Bank statement that the cheque given by him had not been encashed. He has however, omitted to mention in his complaint that when he had come know of the same. He had also been categorically told by the respondents that his results could not be declared unless he pays the complete balance fees. Yet he chose to keep quiet. Admittedly, he has availed of the Distance Learning Programme upto the examination conducted in April and it would appear from the revision petition that for the reasons best known to him he changed his mind about pursuing the MBA course. He has mentioned in his revision petition that "even otherwise, the petitioner did not pursue the MBA course, further, sought his money back". He further states that the lower Fora by passing the order directing the petitioner to pay the balance fee to the respondent has in fact "compelled the petitioner to pay the balance fee for the course which the petitioner neither intended to pursue nor sought from the consumer fora".

This is in direct contradiction to the prayers in his complaint wherein he has stated that "opposite party be ordered that the examination given by him in April 2005 conducted by the opposite party, the result of which was withheld by the opposite party for no reason, be declared." It appears to be a case whereby taking the advantage of the Consumer Fora, the petitioner/ complainant having changed the mind about pursuing the Distance Learning Programme and the MBA course, is not only seeking full refund of the money paid by him with 18% interest but also compensation of Rs.50,000/-. We cannot allow the Consumer Fora to be used for by such petitioner/ complainants for profit.

Further, we find that the impugned orders of lower fora are not sustainable as the orders have been passed in utter disregard of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. in Special Leave Petition No. 22532/2012 decided on 09.08.2012 wherein Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under: "In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition. Thus, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed."

From the above, it is clear that both the fora below have acted beyond jurisdiction in entertaining and allowing the complaint. As such, impugned order cannot be sustained.

In view of the discussion above, we do not find merit in the revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed.