Haryana

Karnal

CC/174/2020

Ajay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Principal Ramrishi Private ITI - Opp.Party(s)

R.K. Arora

21 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint No. 174 of 2020

                                                          Date of instt.20.03.2020

                                                          Date of Decision 21.12.2023

 

Ajay Kumar son of Shri Om Parkash, resident of Village Gudha, District Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Principal, Ramrishi Private ITI, Assandh road Salwan, Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Suman Singh………..Member

 

Argued by: Shri R.K.Arora, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Sanjeev Kumar, counsel for the OP

                   

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that the complainant was studying in the trade fitter in Ramrishi Private ITI Assandh road, Salwan, under Roll No.R180806044712 and was paying the regular fee and nothing is due towards the complainant. That false criminal case has been lodged against the complainant due to party friction in the village and the OP did not allow the complainant appear in the class, knowingly, intentionally and deliberately. Due to this, the attendance of the complainant was short. Due to the fact and conduct of the opposite party the future of the complainant would became in dark. This act of the opposite party is clearly deficiency in service and bad trade practice and due to this, the complainant suffered mental agony, financial loss due to the above reasons. The complainant served a legal notice dated 05.03.2022 upon the opposite party through his counsel Sh. R.K.Arora, Advocate, calling upon to allow the complainant to appear regularly in the class and not to mark the absent of the complainant, so that the complainant would appear in the examination. The legal notice has duly been received by the opposite party, but inspite of receipt of the legal notice the opposite party has not allowed the complainant even to appear in the class. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction, locus standi, bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, estoppel, cause of action, bade by limitation, etc. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant intentionally concealed the fact of lodging criminal case against him. He was arrested in the said criminal case which was lodged vide FIR No.357 dated 14.09.2019, U/s 379 of IPC. Therefore, the question of marking of his presence does not arise at all. The OP has no concern with the allegations leveled against him and is not liable for the same. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of fee slips Ex.C2 to Ex.C7, copy of legal notice Ex.C8, and closed the evidence on 18.11.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Kapil Principal Ramrishi Private ITI as Ex.OPW/A and affidavit of Parveen Kumar, Fitter Instructor, Ramrishi Private ITI OPW/B, authority letters Ex.OP1 & OP2, copy of FIR Ex.OP3, copy of news Ex.OP4, copy of marksheet Ex.OP5, copy of notice Ex.OP6 and Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence on 26.05.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that due to party fiction in the village, a criminal case had got registered against the complainant and due to this the OP did not allow the complainant to appear in the institute and due to this, his attendance got short. Due to shortage of attendance, his roll number was not issued and the complainant could not appear in the examination. Hence, there is clear deficiency in service on the part of OP by not allowing him to appear in the institute and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that a criminal case had been got registered against the complainant and he remained in custody. Due to registration of case and he was confined in jail, he could not attend the institute. This very fact for registration of FIR against the complainant was concealed by the complainant from the institute. Due to non-appearance of the complainant, his attendance was short and roll number could not be issued. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           There are two moot questions before this Commission, is firstly whether complaint is maintainable against the OP being an Educational Institute, secondly whether, the OP, committed any deficiency in service, making the complainant entitled to the relief as prayed for.

11.           The complainant has alleged that the complainant had taken admission in Ramrishi Private ITI Assandh Road, Salwan, and a criminal case had been lodged against the complainant and due to this the OP did not allow him to appear in the institute. The consumer complaint is not maintainable against Institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport, etc. except Coaching Institutions. The present complaint filed against a ITI which falls under the definition of Educational Institute, therefore, present complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In this regard, we are placing reliance on case law laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in bunch of Consumer Cases titled as Manu Solanki and others Versus Chaater Pati Shivaji Education Society and another, wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that  Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport, etc. except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Unni Krishnan JP and another Versus State of Andhra Pradesh and others 1993 I SCC 645, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Education has never been a commerce in this country and that establishing an Educational Institution can neither be a trade or business nor can it be a profession within the meaning of article 19 (1) (g), it was held that “Education” in its truest aspect is more a mean and a vocation rather than a profession or trade or business.

12.           Secondly, the complainant has sought the relief directing the OP to allow the complainant to appear in the class, to issue roll number. The relief sought by the complainant cannot be granted under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The relief sought by the complainant can be granted only by the Civil Court. Moreover, from the perusal of the evidence tendered by the parties, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Thus, the present complaint is also not devoid of any merits.   

13.           Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

 

Announced
Dated: 21.12.2023

 

  President,       

           District Consumer Disputes                          

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                      (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Suman Singh)        

                          Member                          Member