The Registrar, Kannur University v. Aneez Ahammed C.V. and Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2019-11-07
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed; Ext.P3 order set aside.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; Ext.P3 order set aside.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

The Registrar, Kannur University, University Campus, Mangattuparamba, Kannur District

Respondents

ANEEZ AHAMMED C.V. (C.V.HOUSE, PALLIPRAM, POST MUNDAYAD, KANNUR)
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Kannur, rep by its Secretary

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri M. Sasindran
• Sri Viju Thomas, SC, Kannur University

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri K. Rajesh Sukumaran

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Registrar, Kannur University, challenges Ext.P3 of CC No.39/2006, issued by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur, which held the University liable for deficiency in service and awarded ₹1,00,000 to Aneez Ahammed C.V. for losing an academic year. The 1st respondent, a BA Arabic student who stood second in the 2002-2005 BA Arabic examination, argued that publishing results only on 30.07.2005 and, prior to that, inviting applications for an MA Arabic course caused him to lose one academic year and that the University’s actions amounted to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The University contended that the 1st respondent never proved a consumer relationship; he did not apply for the MA course or pay any fees, and the late admission offered on 09.09.2005 was not utilised. The Forum’s decision rested on the notion of deficieny in service despite lack of formal consumer engagement. The High Court, relying on Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, held that statutory educational boards do not provide services within the Act’s meaning, thus the 1st respondent cannot be a consumer, and Ext.P3 is unsustainable. The writ petition is allowed; Ext.P3 is set aside, clarifying the limits of consumer protection in educational contexts.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Statutory Educational Board does not provide service to students under the Consumer Protection Act
The object of the Act is to cover services offered or rendered for a consideration; related to a commercial activity.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The University submits that the 1st respondent could not be treated as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, since no service was provided by the University within the Act’s meaning. It notes the absence of proof of an application, payment of fees, or a consumer relationship. Relying on Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha (2009) 8 SCC 483, the University asserts that the CDRF acted in error by entertaining the complaint and that the late admission offer, made after the last date, could not cure the lack of consumer status. The petition seeks to quash Ext.P3 and restore the status quo.

Contentions of Respondents

The 1st respondent contends that he had legitimate expectations as a meritorious student entitled to admission to MA Arabic; the University’s fixation of admission dates without regard to exam results caused a loss of one academic year and pain, mental agony, and injustice. He argues that the deficiency in service by the University warrants relief under the Act and that the Forum’s direction should be upheld.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha	(2009) 8 SCC 483	Positive	The Apex Court held that a statutory educational board does not provide services under the Consumer Protection Act, supporting the High Court’s view that the 1st respondent cannot be a consumer and that Ext.P3 was unsustainable.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1941** # **WP(C).No.268 OF 2011(G)** ## **PETITIONER:** **THE REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY,, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS,, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.VIJU THOMAS, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 ANEEZ AHAMMED C.V. C.V.HOUSE, PALLIPRAM,, POST MUNDAYAD, KANNUR. 2 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) No.268 OF 2011(G)** **2** ## **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _**Dated this the 7[th] day of November, 2019**_ The Registrar of Kannur University is before this Court challenging Ext.P3 order passed in C.C. No.39/2006 by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur. 2. The 1[st] respondent preferred a complaint before the CDRF, Kannur, alleging that due to the deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner-University, the 1[st] respondent has lost one Academic Year. The 1[st] respondent completed B.A. AfsalUl-ma in Arabic during the period 2002-2005. The 1[st] respondent attended the final year B.A. Degree examination in April, 2005. The result of the said examination was published only on 30.07.2005 by the Kannur University. The 1[st] respondent was the Second Rank holder. Even before the publication of results, the petitioner had invited applications for **WP(C) No.268 OF 2011(G)** **3** admission to the M.A. Arabic Course and the last date for submission of application was 30.07.2005. In the said circumstances, the 1[st] respondent contended before the CDRF that he could not make an application and consequently, he lost one Academic Year. The 1[st] respondent contended before the Forum that he is a 'consumer' falling within the ambit of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the action of the petitioner-University in completing the process of admission to M.A. course even before the results of final year B.A. examination were declared, amounts to deficiency in service. 3. The petitioner defended the complaint before the CDRF. The petitioner contended that on the basis of the request of the 1[st] respondent, the University considered the matter and granted sanction for late admission to the 1[st] respondent as per letter dated 09.09.2005. The 1[st] respondent failed to utilise the opportunity granted. Therefore, the 1[st] respondent is not entitled to any relief. **WP(C) No.268 OF 2011(G)** **4** 4. The Consumer Forum considered the pleadings and came to the conclusion that the 1[st] respondent could establish his case proving deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. The Consumer Forum held that the complainant might have suffered mental injury out of missing one Academic Year, which cannot be measured in terms of money. On these premises, the Forum held that the petitioner-University is liable to pay compensation of an amount of ₹1,00,000/- to the 1[st] respondent, which will meet the ends of justice. It is challenging the said Ext.P3 order that the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the CDRF fell into an error in entertaining the application because the 1[st] respondent cannot be termed as a 'consumer' in the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in _**Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha** [(2009) 8 SCC 483]_ . The learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that in **WP(C) No.268 OF 2011(G)** **5** spite of the expiry of the last date prescribed for submission of application, the 1[st] respondent was granted an opportunity to make an application. The 1[st] respondent did not utilise the opportunity. Under the circumstances, the CDRF ought not have granted any relief to the 1[st] respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent, on the other hand, submitted that he was a student of B.A. Afsal-Ul-ma Arabic of the same University and was aspiring to join the M.A. Arabic Course under the University. The 1[st] respondent was an outstanding student and came out in the examination with Second Rank. He had a legitimate expectation to join the M.A. Arabic Course under the University. The arbitrary action of the University in fixing the dates for submission of application was without regard to the publication of B.A. Examination. The conduct of the University is highly arbitrary. It has resulted in grave injustice to the 1[st] respondent and also caused mental agony since the 1[st] respondent will be losing one precious Academic Year. **WP(C) No.268 OF 2011(G)** **6** 7. I have considered the pleadings and arguments raised on either side. For the CDRF to entertain a complaint, necessarily, it should be in respect of a deficiency in service. The 1[st] respondent was only an aspirant for admission to a course. There is nothing on record to show that the 1[st] respondent has made an application and paid any fees to the University. Therefore, the status of the 1[st] respondent as a consumer is questionable. The Apex Court in _**Bihar School Examination Board** (supra)_ has categorically held that a Statutory Educational Board does not provide any service to the students in the sense the term is used in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Any dispute relating to fault in holding examination and non-declaration of result of an examination will not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The Apex Court further held that the object of the Act is to cover services offered or rendered for a consideration. It necessarily has to be related to a commercial activity. Taking into account the law laid down by the Apex Court in the afore **WP(C) No.268 OF 2011(G)** **7** judgment, it cannot be said that the 1[st] respondent is a 'consumer' of the University. The CDRF, therefore, ought not have entertained the complaint of the 1[st] respondent. Ext.P3 order, therefore, cannot stand the scrutiny of law. Ext.P3 is, therefore, set aside. Writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/07.11.2019 **8** ## **WP(C) No.268 OF 2011(G)** ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER'S EXTS: - P1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN CC.39/2006 - P2 COPY OF THE VERSION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN CC.39/2006 - P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 24.7.2010 IN CC.39/2006