JOGINDRA DEVI DAUGHTER OF LATE RASILA RAM Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY AND ORS
LAWS(HPCDRC)-2009-12-3
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on December 15,2009

Jogindra Devi Daughter Of Late Rasila Ram Appellant
VERSUS
Himachal Pradesh University And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) WHEN hearing in this case commenced, a preliminary objection was raised by learned Counsel for respondent No.1 that in the light of the recent decision of the Hon ble Supreme court in the case of Bihar School Examination Board Versus Suresh Prasad Sinha, 2009 CTJ 1057, this appeal merits outright rejection. Further according to him in the face of this decision, the complaint out of which this appeal has arisen was not maintainable. In this behalf, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 further submitted that University in discharge of its statutory functions enjoined upon it under Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1971, conducts the examination and declares the results. As such, it neither provides any service nor the appellant can be said to be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (o) and 2 (1) (d) respectively of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of this appeal while upholding order of the District Forum below.
(2.) ON the other hand, Mr. Maniktala, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that his client was entitled to maintain the complaint in the face of the decision of the Hon ble Himachal Pradesh High Court dated 24.4.2004 passed in C.W.P. No.10/2000 filed by the present appellant. According to him , it was only after the said decision, that the present complaint was filed.
(3.) WE say nothing so far decision of the Hon ble High Court is concerned. Reason being that the said order has attained finality intra parties, however fact remains that in the face of the recent decision referred to hereinabove which is dated 4.9.2009, we are of the view that the complaint out of which this appeal has arisen was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, impugned order of the District Forum below calls for no interference in this appeal. Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the appellant urged that so far his client is concerned, he was bonafide prosecuting the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, and if this appeal is dismissed, his client will be left high and dry as well as remediless. At the same time he also sought leave to withdraw the complaint out of which this appeal has arisen, reserving liberty to the appellant to initiate such legal proceedings including a civil suit for claiming damages against the respondents. Again the prayer for the grant of permission was seriously contested on behalf of respondent No.1 though learned Counsel submitted that appeal may be allowed to be withdrawn, but without any liberty.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.