RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No. 850 of 2007

Pramod Kumar s/o Shri Ganga Ram Nagar,

R/o Makan no.1/433, Ambedkar Colony (Chawni),

Naurangabad, Tehsil: Kole, District: Aligarh.....Appellant.

Versus

1- Shivdan Singh Institute of Technology &

    Management, Mathura Road, Aligarh through

    Nedeshak.

2- U.P. Technical Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Lucknow

    Through Kulpati.

3- Uttar Pradesh Sarkar bajarie Collector,

    Aligarh.                                                 ….Respondents.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Govardhan Yadav, Member.

Shri O.P. Duvel for the appellant.

None for the respondents.

Date    3.1.2017

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K. Bose,  Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12.3.2007, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Aligarh in Misc. case No.65 of 2007, the appellant/ complainant Shri Pramod Kumar s/o Shri Ganga Ram Nagar has preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind on the basis of surmises and conjectures and therefore, it has been

(2)

prayed that the same be set aside and the appellant be awarded compensation as prayed by him in the complaint otherwise, he will suffer irreparable financial loss.

From perusal of the misc. case no.65 of 2007 dated 22.1.2007, it transpires that the appellant/complainant took his admission in B.Tech. in session 2003-04 in Shivdan Singh Institute of Technology and Management, Mathura Road, Aligarh and consequently, deposited the fees for the 1^st and 2^nd Semesters in addition to Caution Money of Rs.5,000.00 on 16.8.2008. He appeared in the examinations of both semesters in due course of time but before the result could be declared, he was directed to deposit fees for the 3^rd Semester. Accordingly, he deposited a sum of Rs.18,920.00 for the 3^rd Semester. Subsequently, the results of his 1^st and 2^nd Semesters were declared on 25.7.2004 and  he failed in both the examinations.  He did not pursue his education thereafter and applied for refund of the fees which he deposited for the 3^rd Semester but the same was not returned. Treating the same as deficiency in service, a complaint was filed on 22.1.2007. Since it was prima-facie barred by limitation for more than a year therefore, it was registered as Misc. Case and subsequently, after hearing, the same was dismissed on 12.3.2007. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the instant appeal has been preferred.

There is no dispute that the appellant was a student of B.Tech. in Shivdan Singh Institute of Technology and Management, Aligarh. He deposited the fees in advance for the 3^rd Semester on 21.7.2007 but unfortunately he

(3)

failed in the 1^st and 2^nd Semester examinations. He had an opportunity to appear in the supplementary examinations but instead of doing so, he suo-motu left the Institute for which he was to be only blamed. Admittedly, the seat remained vacant thereafter. It is a settled law that the relationship between students and the Educational Institutions are statutory in nature and therefore, no case under the Act 68 of 1986 is maintainable.  Therefore, in view of rulings laid down in Bihar School Examination Board vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC 483, Maharshi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur, (2010) 11 SCC 159, Jagmitter Sain Bhagat vs. Director, Health Services Haryana & Ors., 2013(10) SCC 136, Civil Appeal no.22532 of 2012, P.T. Koshy & Anr. vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. and  Civil Appeal no.697 of 2014, India Institute of Bank & finance vs. Mukul Srivastava, it is held that the appellant/complainant was not a Consumer vis-à-vis the Institute and therefore, the complaint case was not maintainable. Admittedly, he deposited the fees for the 3^rd Semester on 21.7.2004. His result for the 1^st and 2^nd Semesters were declared on 25.7.2004. He failed in the examinations and left the Institute voluntarily without any coercion. He filed complaint on 22.1.2007 i.e. after the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 24(A)(i) of the Act 68 of 1986. The appellant did not apply for condonation of the delay nor any sufficient cause was shown. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the complaint was dismissed on 12.3.2007. The ld. Forum below has acted

(4)

within its jurisdiction as provided under Section 24(A) and has followed the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Appellate Courts as cited hereinabove.  There is no irregularity or illegality in the order and therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the same. Consequently, the appeal, being meritless, is liable to be dismissed.       

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

         (A.K. Bose)                              (Gobardhan Yadav)

    Presiding Member                               Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.3