State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P., Lucknow.
Appeal No. 1995 of 2015N
Director,Seth Srinivas Agarwal Institute of Engineering
and Technology, Naramau, Mandhna, Kanpur Nagar.
….Appellant.
Versus
Rajratan Baudh s/o Brahmadin,
R/o Viullage, Vineshwar, Post, Bhadawal,
Distt. Basti, Uttar Pradesh. ….Respondent.
Present:-
Hon’ble Justice Mr. Akhtar Husain Khan, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Vikas Saxena, Member.
Hon’ble Mr. Sushil Kumar, Member.
Mr. Umesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. R.K. Mishra, Advocate for respondent.
Date: 18.9.2020
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against judgment and order dated 20.7.2015 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kanpur Nagar (Temporary Bench) in complaint no.248 of 2013, Rajratan Baudh vs. Nideshak, Seth Srinivas Agarwal Institute of Engineering and Technology, Naramau, Mandhna, Kanpur Nagar whereby District Consumer Forum has allowed complaint exparte and passed order in Hindi which is extracted below:-
“9- परिवाद एकपक्षीय रूप से मंजूर किया जाता है। विपक्षी इस निर्णय के एक माह के अन्दर परिवादी रू0 5,00,000.00 (पॉच लाख रू0) क्षतिपूर्ति तथा उस पर दिनांक 24.05.2011 से 9 प्रतिशत वार्षिक की दर से ब्याज अदा करे। एक माह के अंदर उक्त धनराशि न अदा करने पर ब्याज की दर 9 प्रतिशत की बजाय 12 प्रतिशत होगी।
10- निर्णय से एक माह के अन्दर विपक्षी के मैनेजिंग डायरेक्टर या डायरेक्टर स्वयमेव परिवादी के घर (ग्राम पिनेसर पो0 भदावल जिला बस्ती, उ0प्र0) जाकर, परिवादी का मूल हाईस्कूल अंकपत्र, हाई स्कूल प्रमाण पत्र उसे सौंप दें। ऐसा न करने पर विपक्षी को प्रतिदिन 2000.00 (दो हजार) की दर से क्षतिपूर्ति परिवादी को देना होगा।”
(2)
Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by District Consumer Forum, opposite party of the complaint Director, Seth Srinivas Agarwal Institute of Engineering and Technology, Naramau, Mandhna, Kanpur Nagar has filed this appeal.
Ld. Counsel Mr. Umesh Kumar Srivastava appeared for appellant.
Ld. Counsel Mr. R.K. Mishra appeared for respondent.
We have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and perused impugned judgment and order as well as records.
We have perused written argument filed by the respondent/complainant.
In brief, relevant facts for determination of appeal are that the respondent/complainant has filed above complaint against appellant/opposite party Director, Seth Srinivas Agarwal Institute of Engineering and Technology, Naramau, Mandhna, Kanpur Nagar before District Consumer Forum wherein it has been stated that the said institute is a private engineering college affiliated with Gautam Budh Technical University, Lucknow (previous name U.P. Technical University). The respondent/complainant took admission in the said college in B.Tech, Branch IT in academic session of 2011-12 and deposited fee. He studied there and participated in the examinations of 3 semesters.
In complaint, it has been stated by the respondent complainant that his name is Rajratan Boudh. His father’s name is Bhramhdin and his date of birth is 12.4.1994 but he was admitted in the examination of 1st semester by the appellant college as Rajratan son of Ramesh Kuril and date of
(3)
birth 6.6.1990 and when he informed the management of the college about the fault. The management of the college assured him that his name, parentage and date of birth shall be corrected. On assurance given by appellant/opposite party he appeared in examinations of 3 semesters as Rajratan son of Ramesh Kuril date of birth 6.6.1990.
In complaint, it has been further stated that the respondent/complainant obtained information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the Gautam Budh Technical University, Lucknow on 5.10.2012 about his enrollment in the university whereby he was informed by the university that there was no enrollment of the respondent/complainant Rajratan Baudh son of Brahmadin, date of birth 12.4.1994.
In complaint, it has been stated by the respondent/ complainant that due to fraudulent act of appellant/opposite party respondent/complainant has lost his 2 valuable years and furthermore, appellant/opposite party did not return documents filed by him for admission in said college. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent/complainant sent notice to appellant/opposite party for compensation but the appellant/opposite party did not take any action to redress his grievance. Therefore, the respondent/complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum with following prayer;
“अत: श्रीमान् जी से विनम्र प्रार्थना है कि प्रार्थी/परिवादी, को मुबलिग 5,00,000/-रू0 (पॉंच लाख रूपये) एडमीशन फीस, परीक्षा फीस आने जाने का भाड़ा, रहने का खर्च समय की बर्बादी, मानसिक क्षति, भविष्य को बर्बाद करना एवं वाद व्यय आदि के मद में दिलाये जाने तथा विपक्षी को दण्डित करने की कृपा करें।“
Perusal of impugned judgment passed the District
(4)
Consumer Forum reveals that notice was sent to appellant/ opposite party through registered post but the opposite party did not appear before the District Consumer Forum. Consequently, the District Consumer Forum has proceeded exparte against appellant/opposite party and passed exparte judgment against him.
It is contended by ld. counsel for the appellant that the complaint is not maintainable against the appellant/opposite party under the Consumer Protection Act. The impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum is without jurisdiction and against law. Ld. Counsel for appellant has referred judgment dated 20.1.2020 passed by Hon’ble National Commission in Consumer Case no.261 of 2012, Manu Solanki & others vs. Vinayaka Mission University (Formerly known as Vinayaka Mission’s Research Foundation Deemed University) decided alongwith another complaint and bunch of several other revision petitions to support his contention.
It is contended by ld. Counsel for the appellant that the service of notice has not been ensured by the District Consumer Forum on appellant and appellant was unaware of the complaint as well as impugned order of the District Consumer Forum.
It is contended by ld. Counsel for the appellant that the matter was placed before the Director of the Institute for filing appeal and after necessary formalities appeal has been filed with delay condonation application. Delay should be condoned and appeal should be decided on merit.
Ld. Counsel for the respondent/complainant opposed
(5)
delay condonation application as well as appeal and contended that the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum is in accordance with law. The appellant/opposite party did not appear before the District Consumer Forum despite sufficient service of notice. As such, the District Consumer Forum has rightly proceeded exparte against appellant/opposite party. Appeal is time barred and it has no force. Appeal should be dismissed.
Ld. Counsel for respondent/complainant has referred judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital vs. Bhupesh Khurana & others reported in I(2009) CPJ 25 (SC) to support his argument.
Ld. Counsel for respondent/complainant has further referred judgment dated 21.6.2016 passed by this State Commission in appeal no.2131of 2015, Sharda Group of Institutions & ors. vs. Avinash Tiwari.
We have considered the submissions made by ld. Counsel for the parties.
Appeal has been filed by the appellant with delay condonation application. While hearing on admission this State Commission vide order dated 30.10.2015 has directed that the issue of limitation of appeal shall be decided at the time of final disposal of appeal.
Both parties have put in appearance and impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum is exparte. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by ld. Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the delay of appeal should be condonded and appeal should be decided on merits.
(6)
In above judgment dated 20.1.2020 passed in consumer case no.261 of 2012, Manu Solanki & others vs. Vinayaka Mission University and other cases of bunch Hon’ble National Commission after having gone through various judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court has concluded as follows:
“In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the 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, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”
Indisputably, appellant/opposite party is affiliated with Gautam Budh Technical University, Lucknow and there is no dispute about affiliation and recognition of college. As such, above judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital vs. Bhupesh Khurana & others is not applicable on facts of present case.
In view of proposition laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in above judgment dated 20.1.2020 passed in above consumer case no.261 of 2012; Manu Solanki & others vs. Vinayaka Mission University and other cases of the bunch, dispute raised in complaint is not a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. The impugned judgment and order passed by the District Forum is without jurisdiction and against law.
In view of conclusion drawn above, appeal is allowed.
(7)
Impugned judgment and order passed by the District Forum is set aside and complaint is dismissed with liberty to respondent/complainant to approach competent court or authority in accordance with law.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Rs.25,000.00 deposited under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall be refunded to appellant alongwith interest accrued.
(Justice Akhtar Husain Khan) (Vikas Saxena) (Sushil Kumar)
President Member Member
Jafri PA II
Court No.1
