TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Jurisdiction Issue: Educational Services Complaint Dismissed under Consumer Protection Act</h1> <h3>MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY Versus SURJEET KAUR</h3> MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY Versus SURJEET KAUR - 2010 (8) SCR 475, 2010 (11) SCC 159, 2010 (7) JT179, 2010 (7) SCALE 194 Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint.2. Legitimacy of the respondent's simultaneous enrollment in two courses.3. Validity of the Notification dated 16.3.1998 concerning the respondent's eligibility.4. The respondent's entitlement to the B.Ed. degree and the applicability of consumer protection laws.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint:The appellant contended that the District Forum lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the refusal to award the B.Ed. degree was within its jurisdiction and not a consumer service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The National Commission, however, held that education by educational institutions for consideration falls within the ambit of service as defined under the Act. The Supreme Court, referencing the Bihar School Examination Board case, concluded that the Board is not a service provider, and the student is not a consumer. Thus, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.2. Legitimacy of the respondent's simultaneous enrollment in two courses:The respondent pursued an M.A. in Political Science and simultaneously applied for a B.Ed. (correspondence course) without disclosing the former. This violated Clause 17(b) of the General Rules of Examination, which prohibits simultaneous enrollment in two courses. The respondent was informed to choose one course, and she opted for the M.A. course. The Supreme Court upheld that the appellant was correct in withholding the B.Ed. degree as the respondent's simultaneous enrollment was against the rules.3. Validity of the Notification dated 16.3.1998 concerning the respondent's eligibility:The Notification dated 16.3.1998 granted a last chance to students who had not completed their courses within the prescribed period. The respondent applied under this Notification, appeared, and passed the B.Ed. examination. However, the Supreme Court found that the Notification was not intended for candidates like the respondent who had violated Clause 17(b). The appellant's action to correct this discrepancy was justified, and the respondent could not claim estoppel against a statutory provision.4. The respondent's entitlement to the B.Ed. degree and the applicability of consumer protection laws:The Supreme Court emphasized that the respondent's participation in the B.Ed. examination, despite being allowed erroneously, did not confer any right to the degree. The court reiterated that rules and regulations cannot be defeated due to an administrative error. The National Commission's reliance on the Bangalore Water Supply case was misplaced as the respondent was not a consumer, and the appellant was not rendering a service. The Supreme Court concluded that the entire exercise of entertaining the complaint and awarding relief by the District Forum and National Commission was not in conformity with the law.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, and the judgments of the District Forum and National Commission were set aside. The Supreme Court clarified that statutory provisions must be implemented correctly and cannot be overridden by judicial directions. The respondent's claim was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
