Noida: A UP resident fought for 10 years against Deen Dayal Upadhyaya University in Gorakhpur and Allahabad Bank’s (now Indian Bank) Lakhimpur Kheri branch for not being allowed to appear in the BEd entrance test in March 2013 despite depositing the requisite fee of Rs 900 on time. In 2023, the battle yielded fruit when the District Consumer Dispute Redress Commission at Lakhimpur Kheri found a lapse on the part of the university and ordered it to refund Rs 900 plus a fine of Rs 2.5 lakh and Rs 5,000 as litigation costs.This year, hearing the university’s appeal, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Lucknow, however, reversed that order. The commission held that the relationship between a university and a student was not that of a consumer and a service provider under the Consumer Protection Act. It said the order of the district commission was irrelevant, as the matter was beyond its jurisdiction and scope.The fight for justice began at the DCDRC on May 8, 2013, two months after the university refused to issue an admit card to the applicant, Kamaljeet Kaur, for the BEd entrance examination on the grounds that she had not deposited the fee on time.Kaur filed the complaint against the university and Indian Bank, through which she had deposited the examination fee on March 5, 2013. She claimed the last date for depositing the fee was March 10.Appearing before the district consumer commission, Indian Bank stated that the fee deposited by the candidate had been transferred to the university’s account before the due date. Notice was also issued to the university, but in the absence of any representation or counter-statement, the DCDRC conducted a unilateral hearing on June 15, 2015, and ruled in favour of the candidate.The DCDRC found no deficiency in service on the part of the bank, as it had deposited the fee well within time, and ordered the university on Oct 12, 2023, to return the examination fee with 7% annual interest calculated from the date of filing of the complaint, along with compensation of Rs 2.5 lakh and litigation costs of Rs 5,000 to be paid to the applicant within 60 days.The university, through its deputy registrar, approached the state commission and filed an appeal against the district commission’s order the same year.A bench comprising chairperson Justice Ajay Kumar Srivastava and member Sudha Upadhyay heard arguments from Ravish Raj, appearing for the university, and Sharad Kumar Shukla, appearing for the candidate. The bench held that the university, as the appellant, was an educational institution, and the respondent was a student enrolled there.“Under these admitted circumstances, the respondent cannot be said to be a consumer. Therefore, the finding of the District Consumer Commission, contrary to this fact, is premature and unfounded,” the state commission held.Citing Supreme Court’s ruling in Maharshi Dayanand University vs Surjeet Kaur (2010), the commission held that educational institutions are excluded from the scope of service providers, and that consumer courts do not have jurisdiction to hear disputes relating to admission and fees.“Therefore, in the light of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, the suit filed by a student of the university against the university was not maintainable before the District Consumer Commission, since the issue in question is not a consumer dispute and the relationship between the appellant and the respondent is not that of a service provider and a consumer. The impugned decision dated Oct 12, 2023, is irrelevant. Consequently, the impugned decision/order is set aside, and the appeal is allowed,” the state commission said.
