S.D.Seth Mathews & Anr. ...... Petitioners

Vs.

Mahatma Gandhi University ...... Respondent

Before: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P.Wadhwa, Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.L.Chaudhry, Member, 

Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.K.Mehra, Member & Mr. Taimni, Member

C.L.CHAUDHRY, J, MEMBER

               This Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Kerala State Commission, dated 15-2-1995, by which the complaint of the petitioner in revision was dismissed.

            The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Kottayam against the Mahatma Gandhi University claiming compensation of Rs. 1,11,208/- from the University. The contraversy had arisen between the parties from the following facts:

             The petitioner passed SSLC examination conducted by the Govt. of Tamil Nadu (Compartmental October, 1989) and joined the Bethancy Academy for B.A. and B.Ed. course and passing of pre-degree examinations. The complainant applied to the opposite parties for granting private registration which was rejected initially and subsequently was issued provisional private registration subject to production of registration and eligibility certificates. The eligibility certificate was issued on 12-3-1993 and migration certificate on 4-4-1992 by the Opposite Parties. The complainant appeared for first pre-degree examination and opposite parties issued mark list on 15-12-92. Thereafter the complainant appeared for second degree examination also. However, on 17-4-93, the opposite parties issued memo stating that the complainant’s pre-degree Certificate was cancelled because the qualifying examination, ie., SSLC (Compartmental) of Tamil Nadu was not recognised by the opposite parties. On account of that, the complainant lost heavily due to the inordinate delay caused in proper action and cancelling the private registration for pre-degree Certificate after issuing eligibility certificate. In these circumstances, the complainant claimed Rs. 1,11,208/- as compensation from the opposite parties. The opposite parties contested the complaint filed by the complainant on the plea that the complainant passed SSLC examination on Compartmental basis which was not recognised and that the Registration was only provisional registration. On perusal of Certificates, it was found by the University that the complainant passed SSLC examination on Compartmental basis which was not approved by the University.

                 After due considertaion, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 35,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for the loss caused to the complainant and also awarded Rs. 5,000/- as costs. It was observed by the District Forum that the complainant had submitted his mark list of SSLC exam to the opposite parties on 16-9-1991 along with the application for private registration and the mark sheets clearly showed that the complainant had passed the SSLC examination (Compartmentally). The opposite parties overlooked that factor and issued provisional registration allowing the complainant to appear for pre-degree examination. The complainant was not aware of the fact that the SSLC examination passed compartmentally was not eligible for registration for appearing for pre-degree examination of Mahatma Gandhi University. The mark list clearly showed that the complainant had passed SSLC exam compartmentally and instead of rejecting the application for private registration, the opposite parties issued provisional registration, and subsequently issued eligibility certificate to the complainant to appear for the first and second year pre-degree examination and cancelled the registration on 31-3-93. By that time, the complainant had put in his efforts for preparing for the examination and two years were lost due to the cancellation of the private registration by the opposite parties. The University should not have adopted casual approach in dealing with such matters.

              Aggrieved by the District Forum, University went to the State Commission by filing an appeal. 

               The State Commission in the light of the decision of this Commission reported as 1994(I) CPJ 146 and 1944(I) CPJ 187 holding that the University while valuing the answer papers or undertaking the revaluation of answer papers or the re-checking of marks awarded to a candidate who had appeared for the examination, was not performing a service which had been hired or availed of for consideration. The State Commission also held that there was no arrangement for hiring of services for consideration, the order of the District Forum was without jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed and the complaint was dismissed by the State Commission.

             The complainant has approached this Commission by filing the present revision petition. Mr. Sharma, appearing for the complainant submitted that imparting of education for consideration was service under the Consumer Protection Act. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgement of this Commission - Bhupesh Khurana & Ors. Vs. Vishwa Buddha Parishad and Ors. - 2000 CTJ 801 (CP) where the National Commission relying upon the judgement of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1978 SC - 548 held as under :-

"Imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of ‘service’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institutions. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. The Complainants had hired the services of the Respondent for consideration so they are consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act."

           On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that imparting of Education does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. In support of his contentions, the Counsel relied upon the judgement of the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam in OP No. 6191 of 1997, Kumari Kanaka Kumar P.V. Vs. The Registrar, M.G. University, Kottayam.

             We have perused the judgement delivered by the Kerala High Court. The point involved in that case was that the petitioner was a candidate for pre-degree course. She had passed her 10th Class in the year 1995. She was admitted in the College under M.G. University prior to the first year pre-degree course. The petitioner was informed that she was not eligible for writing the examination since she had completed CBSE through compartmental system. She filed the Original Petition seeking to quash the memo which provided that the student was not eligible for writing the examination. The petition was dismissed on the ground that it was for the M.G. University to decide whether compartmental certificate was to be recognised or not.

          Following the view taken by this Commission in the case of Bhupesh Khurana & Ors. Vs. Vishwa Buddha Parishad & Ors. (Supra), we have no hesitation in holding that imparting of Education by an institution for consideration falls within the ambit of service as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.

          The view taken by the State Commission is contrary to the decision of this Commission in the case of - Bhupesh Khurana (Supra). The order passed by the State Commission suffers from legal infirmity and cannot be sustained. The order passed by the District forum is legally correct and it has to be upheld. There was a deficiency in service on the part of the University as held by the District Forum. As a result, we set aside the order of the State Commission and restore the order passed by the District Forum. However, there shall be no order as to costs.