w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Seth Srinivas Agarwal Institute of Engineering And Technology v/s Raj Ratan Baudh


Company & Directors' Information:- RATAN CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120MH1992PLC068199

Company & Directors' Information:- G P C TECHNOLOGY LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = L31300DL1980PLC010998

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJ RATAN CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120UP2008PLC036077

Company & Directors' Information:- T R S TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2003PTC119643

Company & Directors' Information:- RATAN ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1985PTC021146

Company & Directors' Information:- A 1 TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200PB2002PTC035548

Company & Directors' Information:- D TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01403MH2015PTC268305

Company & Directors' Information:- B S TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28990DL2013PTC262594

Company & Directors' Information:- P S TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31902WB1997PTC084379

Company & Directors' Information:- J R S TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120UP2015PTC074074

Company & Directors' Information:- K & D TECHNOLOGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72500MP2007PTC019697

Company & Directors' Information:- E E I TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U31909WB1991PTC053259

Company & Directors' Information:- E M TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2000PTC105539

Company & Directors' Information:- R M TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2016PTC280859

Company & Directors' Information:- 5 I TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900UP2016PTC083186

Company & Directors' Information:- SETH AND COMPANY (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U36939DL1987PTC028036

Company & Directors' Information:- AGARWAL ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31909DL2003PTC122494

Company & Directors' Information:- S B 3 TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2010PTC209614

Company & Directors' Information:- T & C TECHNOLOGY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC074144

Company & Directors' Information:- P & A TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45208OR2011PTC014269

Company & Directors' Information:- R G S TECHNOLOGY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TN2003PTC050424

Company & Directors' Information:- Q & Q TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2013PTC259002

Company & Directors' Information:- G M I TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TG2011PTC075075

Company & Directors' Information:- I E TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900MH2001PTC132315

Company & Directors' Information:- I P L TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29290MH2000PTC127550

Company & Directors' Information:- G I TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200MH2005PTC156230

Company & Directors' Information:- S. R. TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2017PTC290229

Company & Directors' Information:- M H T TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN2010PTC077205

Company & Directors' Information:- S RAJ ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29220DL2012PTC239190

Company & Directors' Information:- K S Q TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2006PTC154900

Company & Directors' Information:- N G S TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000DL2009PTC196737

Company & Directors' Information:- P C TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL2015PTC278616

Company & Directors' Information:- V & P TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200HR2011PTC044721

Company & Directors' Information:- N C A TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900PB2008PTC031981

Company & Directors' Information:- M G TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2007PTC172003

Company & Directors' Information:- T & S TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U32204DL2008PTC177037

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJ ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29190GJ1995PTC027507

    First Appeal No. 1995 of 2015

    Decided On, 02 September 2020

    At, Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lucknow

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN
    By, PRESIDENT; THE HONOURABLE MR. VIKASH SAXENA & THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHIL KUMARS

    For the Appellant: Umesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. For the Respondent: R.K. Mishra, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Akhtar Husain Khan, President1. This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against judgment and order dated 20.7.2015 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kanpur Nagar (Temporary Bench) in complaint No. 248 of 2013, Rajratan Baudh v. Nideshak, Seth Srinivas Agarwal Institute of Engineering and Technology, Naramau, Mandhna, Kanpur Nagar whereby District Consumer Forum has allowed complaint ex parte and passed order in Hindi which is extracted below:“Hindi matter omitted”2. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by District Consumer Forum, opposite party of the complaint Director, Seth Srinivas Agarwal Institute of Engineering and Technology, Naramau, Mandhna, Kanpur Nagar has filed this appeal.3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused impugned judgment and order as well as records.We have perused written argument filed by the respondent/complainant.In brief, relevant facts for determination of appeal are that the respondent/complainant has filed above complaint against appellant/opposite party Director, Seth Srinivas Agarwal Institute of Engineering and Technology, Naramau, Mandhna, Kanpur Nagar before District Consumer Forum wherein it has been stated that the said institute is a private engineering college affiliated with Gautam Budh Technical University, Lucknow (previous name U.P. Technical University). The respondent/complainant took admission in the said college in B.Tech, Branch IT in academic session of 2011-12 and deposited fee. He studied there and participated in the examinations of 3 semesters.4. In complaint, it has been stated by the respondent complainant that his name is Rajratan Boudh. His father’s name is Bhramhdin and his date of birth is 12.4.1994 but he was admitted in the examination of 1st semester by the appellant college as Rajratan son of Ramesh Kuril and date of birth 6.6.1990 and when he informed the management of the college about the fault. The management of the college assured him that his name, parentage and date of birth shall be corrected. On assurance given by appellant/opposite party he appeared in examinations of 3 semesters as Rajratan son of Ramesh Kuril date of birth 6.6.1990.5. In complaint, it has been further stated that the respondent/complainant obtained information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the Gautam Budh Technical University, Lucknow on 5.10.2012 about his enrollment in the university whereby he was informed by the university that there was no enrollment of the respondent/complainant Rajratan Baudh son of Brahmadin, date of birth 12.4.1994.6. In complaint, it has been stated by the respondent/complainant that due to fraudulent act of appellant/opposite party respondent/complainant has lost his 2 valuable years and furthermore, appellant/opposite party did not return documents filed by him for admission in said college. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent/complainant sent notice to appellant/opposite party for compensation but the appellant/opposite party did not take any action to redress his grievance. Therefore, the respondent/complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum with following prayer;“Hindi matter omitted”7. Perusal of impugned judgment passed the District Consumer Forum reveals that notice was sent to appellant/opposite party through registered post but the opposite party did not appear before the District Consumer Forum. Consequently, the District Consumer Forum has proceeded ex parte against appellant/opposite party and passed ex parte judgment against him.8. It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the complaint is not maintainable against the appellant/opposite party under the Consumer Protection Act. The impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum is without jurisdiction and against law. Learned Counsel for appellant has referred judgment dated 20.1.2020 passed by Hon’ble National Commission in Consumer Case No. 261 of 2012, Manu Solanki & Others v. Vinayaka Mission University (Formerly known as Vinayaka Mission’s Research Foundation Deemed University, decided along with another complaint and bunch of several other revision petitions to support his contention.9. It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the service of notice has not been ensured by the District Consumer Forum on appellant and appellant was unaware of the complaint as well as impugned order of the District Consumer Forum.10. It is contended by ld. Counsel for the appellant that the matter was placed before the Director of the Institute for filing appeal and after necessary formalities appeal has been filed with delay condonation application. Delay should be condoned and appeal should be decided on merit.Learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant opposed delay condonation application as well as appeal and contended that the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum is in accordance with law. The appellant/opposite party did not appear before the District Consumer Forum despite sufficient service of notice. As such, the District Consumer Forum has rightly proceeded ex parte against appellant/opposite party. Appeal is time barred and it has no force. Appeal should be dismissed.11. Learned Counsel for respondent/complainant has referred judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital v. Bhupesh Khurana & Others, reported in I (2009) CPJ 25 (SC)=II (2009) SLT 56, to support his argument.12. Learned Counsel for respondent/complainant has further referred judgment dated 21.6.2016 passed by this State Commission in appeal No. 2131 of 2015, Sharda Group of Institutions & Ors. v. Avinash Tiwari.13. We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties.Appeal has been filed by the appellant with delay condonation application. While hearing on admission this State Commission vide order dated 30.10.2015 has directed that the issue of limitation of appeal shall be decided at the time of final disposal of appeal.14. Both parties have put in appearance and impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum is ex parte. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the delay of appeal should be condonded and appeal should be decided on merits.15. In above judgment dated 20.1.2020 passed in consumer case No. 261 of 2012, Manu Solanki & Others v. Vinayaka Mission University and Other cases of bunch Hon’ble National Commission after having gone through various judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court has concluded as follows:“In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport, etc. except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”16. Indisputably, appellant/opposite party is affiliated with Gautam Budh Technical University, Lucknow and there is no dispute about affiliation and recognition of college. As such, above judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital v. Bhupesh Khurana & Others is not applicable on facts of present case.17. In view of proposition laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in above judgment dated

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

20.1.2020 passed in above consumer case No. 261 of 2012; Manu Solanki & others v. Vinayaka Mission University and Other cases of the bunch, dispute raised in complaint is not a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. The impugned judgment and order passed by the District Forum is without jurisdiction and against law.18. In view of conclusion drawn above, appeal is allowed.Impugned judgment and order passed by the District Forum is set aside and complaint is dismissed with liberty to respondent/complainant to approach Competent Court or authority in accordance with law.Parties shall bear their own costs.Rs. 25,000 deposited under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall be refunded to appellant along with interest accrued.Appeal allowed.
O R