compensation for deficiency in admission process, failure to publish result, issue degree certificate TC in educational institutions under consumer protection act

 Compensation for Deficiency in admission process,failure to publish result, issue degree certificate, TC in Educational institutions under consumer protection Act

Rithvik K.R. v. Union of India      2015 SCC OnLine Kar 2305.

 

Facts: In the present case, four students applied for admission in KIMS

against management quota for I year MBBS course for the academic year

2014-2015 along with fees and donations amounting to approximately eighty

lakhs. The father of one of the student was also made to sign an undertaking that he understands that the admission given to his son was only provisional and subject to approval by RGUHS/MCI and in excess of the stipulated management seats. In case of non-approval, the management and the college will not be responsible. Later, three of the students were discharged from the college on the ground that their admission to the course was in excess of the admission capacity fixed for the college. The college discharged them only after the expiry of the last date of taking admission in colleges for that academic year.

Issue: Whether there was a deficiency in service by the college authorities

in admission process?

Decision: The Court found the conduct of the college of taking such an

undertaking from the parents of the student along with huge amounts of

donation disturbing and ordered the MCI and Central Government to take

serious note of the matter and take measures to ensure transparency in the

admission process even against management quota, especially by making it

more technology based. The High Court also found the college’s act of not

discharging the students with illegal admission and not refunding the amount

received from them well before the last date for admission in colleges for

that academic year as grossly irresponsible and as it resulted in them losing

one academic year and unnecessary litigation causing unimaginable mental

agony to them the High Court ordered the college to pay Rs. 1 crore each to all the three students as compensation along with refund of the amount paid by them to the college for the admission.

 

 

 

Nipun Nagar v. Symbiosis Institute of International Business

 

Facts: The Complainant had surrendered his seat after getting admission

into another institute. The Opposite Party refused to refund the entire fees

to the complainant. The National Commission relied on the notice issued by

the University Grants Commission providing that institutes should refund

the entire fee, except for processing fee of Rs. 1000/-, to students who

withdraw before the start of the course. 

 

Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha AIR 2010 SC 93.

 

Facts: This was an appeal filed to the Supreme Court by Special Leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950. In this case, the Appellant-Board failed to publish result of Respondent’s son in Senior Secondary Examination. As a result, the Respondent’s son had to re-appear for examination and suffered loss of 1 year. Pursuant to this, the Respondent sought compensation by filing a consumer complaint to the District Consumer Forum, Patna. The District Forum ordered compensation. Thereafter, the Appellant Board’s appeal was dismissed by State Commission. The Appellant’s appeal before National Commission was also dismissed. Hence, the Appellant preferred the present appeal by Special Leave.

Issue: Whether a statutory School Examination Board comes within purview

of Consumer Protection Act?

Decision: The Supreme Court held that the object of the Consumer

Protection Act is to cover in its net, services offered or rendered for a

consideration. Any service rendered for a consideration is presumed to be a

commercial activity in its broadest sense (including professional activity or

quasi-commercial activity). But the Act does not intended to cover discharge

of a statutory function of examining whether a candidate is fit to be declared

as having successfully completed a course by passing the examination. The

fact that in the course of conduct of the examination, or evaluation of

answer-scripts, or furnishing of mark-sheets or certificates, there may be

some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Board into a

service-provider for a consideration, nor convert the examinee into a consumer who can make a complaint under the Act. In essence, the Supreme Court held that the process of holding examinations, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function. The functions of Appellant cannot be divided into partly statutory and partly administrative. Appellant does not offer its ‘service’ to any candidate and examination fee paid by student is not consideration for availment of any service. Therefore, deficiency in process of examination does not convert Appellant into a service provider for a consideration nor convert examinee a consumer, therefore Respondent’s complaint would not be maintainable. The Appellant Board was not rendering any ‘service’, hence impugned orders of Consumer Fora set aside and the Appeal was allowed.

 

Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur

 

 

Facts: The dispute arose when the Respondent felt aggrieved by the action

of the Appellant refusing to confer the degree of B.Ed. on her. The background of the facts giving rise to the case was that the Respondent took admission in the academic session of 1994-95 as a regular student to pursue the course of M.A. in Political Science from Government College, Gurgaon. The Respondent appeared in the Part-II Examination in May, 1995 as a regular candidate and in the same academic session of 1994-95 she also applied for admission in the B.Ed. (correspondence course) without disclosing the fact that she was already pursuing the regular course of M.A. in Political Science. The University at the time of preparation of the results of M.A. in Political Science discovered that the Respondent had been pursuing her B.Ed. course in violation of Clause 17(b) of the General Rules of Examination and accordingly the Respondent was informed that in view of the aforesaid rules she should exercise her option to choose anyone of the courses. The Respondent voluntarily and consciously opted for pursuing her course of M.A. in Political Science and forewent her B.Ed. Degree course. Subsequently, the University as a general measure of benefit granted an indulgence through Notification dated 16.3.1998 giving a further chance to such Ex. Students who had not been able to complete their post-graduation/B.Ed. courses within the span of prescribed period as provided for under the rules. The supplementary examinations in this regard were announced by the University in the month of December, 1998. The Respondent applied under the said Notification for appearing in B.Ed. examination and succeeded in appearing in the examinations and also passed the same. The Appellant- University refused to confer the degree of B.Ed. on the Respondent. Aggrieved, the Respondent approached the District Forum in the year 2000 praying for the relief which has now been ultimately awarded in the impugned order of National Commission.

 

(2010) 11 SCC 159.

 

Issue: Whether imparting of education by the educational institutions for

consideration falls within the ambit of service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act?

Decision: The National Commission stated that imparting of education by

the educational institutions for consideration falls within the ambit of service

as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgement, on grounds of non-competence of the district forum to entertain the complaint since Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha clearly enunciated that services provided by educational institutions cannot be brought under Consumer Protection Act. The Supreme Court is right in upholding Bihar Examination Board, as bringing educational institutions under the ambit of consumer protection would make administrative matters subject to litigation and would cause a flood in suits to harass the administration.

 

Demand of money for transfer certificate

 

Banne Singh Sekahwat v. Jhunjhunu Academy

Facts: The Complainant had filed a revised petition against the order of the

State Commission dated 02.06.2016. The Complainant’s daughter was a

student of the OP school. She passed her 12th exam in the year 2013 and

contacted school for the issue of transfer certificate and refund of her caution money. The school demanded Rs. 10,000/- as a precondition to issue transfer certificate though there was no outstanding fees. Because of refusal to issue TC, Complainant’s daughter did not get admission in academic year 2013-14. So the Complainant filed consumer complaint in the District Forum and sought compensation of Rs. 4,50,000./- The OP denied all the allegations and denied that Complainant never approached school. The District Forum directed school to issue TC and character certificate to Complainant’s daughter within 15 days otherwise liable to pay Rs. 10,000/-. The Complainant was aggrieved of the meagre amount of compensation awarded by District Forum preferred an appeal in State Commission. The State Commission did not find any fault with the order of District Forum. Hence, Complainant filed revised petition under NCDRC.

2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 128.

 

Issue: Whether there was deficiency in service on part of school?

Decision: NCDRC held that it is clear that on account of wrongful act of

the Opposite Party daughter of the Complainant was prevented from getting

admission in college in the current session i.e.2013-14. Wastage of one year

in the career of a student has wide implication on the job as also promotion

prospects. Both the forums have failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter while deciding on the compensation to be paid. Therefore impugned order cannot be sustained. Thus the order of State Commission was modified and it was directed to OP to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant within a month.  On failing the Complainant shall be entitled to recover the money by filing execution petition in the District Forum.