The facts, discerning and deciphering this case as put forth in this complaint in nutshell, are as under:- The Government College University, Faisalabad through its Voice Chancellor started a programme for imparting the legal education in the L. L. B course in the said University for the session 2003-06 hence the claimants took admission in the said course under Registration NO.2003-GCUF-1351-9, 2003 GCUF-1355-9, 2003-GCUF-1364-9 respectively and passed the same course in September, 2006. However, after passing their L. L. B course, it came to the claimant's knowledge that the Law Department of Government College University, Faisalabad was not recognized by the Pakistan Bar Council as the same was established without the fulfillment of the necessary legal requirements.
As such, the claimants were treated in eligible by Pakistan Bar Council to apply for the enrollment / license from Punjab bar Council. The claimants requested the defendants time and again to get the Law Department recognized from the concerned Pakistan Bar Council but in vain. Due to such defective and faulty services of the defendants, the claimants precious time has been wasted, their future ruined, causing them mental torture, loss of job and also wastage of huge money. As the defendants have finally refused to get recognized the law department of Government College University, Faisalabad by the Pakistan Bar Council 22 days before lodging this claim against them, hence, after delivery of legal notice on 04.10.2007 the claimants have submitted this complaint for recovery of damages caused to them due to defective and faulty service of the defendants as enumerated in Para No.4 of the claim.
2. The defendants appeared to contest the claim and submitted the written statement with the objections that the claim does not fall within the ambit of the definition of the consumer as given in Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, that the claim is time barred, that the matter for approval of law faculty is being processed before Pakistan Bar Council that hence the claim is pre-mature.
However, my learned predecessor turned down such preliminary objections vide order dated 07.12.2008, where after, the defendants were directed to get the L. L. B degree recognized from the concerned quarters within a period of three months as the parties were also directed to produce respective evidence vide subsequent dated 05.03.2008.
3. In support of their claim, the claimants have produced Aizad Shahzad Mehmood Awan (claimant No.1) as PW-1 and submitted his affidavit on oath, original Registration Card as Ex.P-1, receipts of fee Ex.P2 to Ex.P-7, provisional certificate Ex.P-8, character certificate Ex.P-9, Muhammad Nadeem Aashiq (claimant No.2) tendered affidavit Ex.P-2 on oath, original Registration Card as Ex.P-10, receipts of fee Ex.P11 to Ex.P-17, provisional certificate Ex.P-18, character certificate Ex.P-19, Faisal Mehmood (claimant No.3) appeared as PW-3 adduced affidavit Ex.P-3 on oath, receipts of fee Ex.P- 20 to Ex.P-17, provisional certificate Ex.P-18, character certificate Ex.P-19, Din Muhammad Zafar (PW- 4) who submitted affidavit on oath as Ex.P-4/1, Aamir Mehmood (PW-5) who adduced affidavit Ex.P-5 on oath, Muhammad Aashiq appeared along-with his affidavit (Ex.P-6/1).
4. In rebuttal, Muhammad Javaid Aslam Bajwa, Controller Examination of Government College University, Faisalabad got recorded his statement as DW-1 producing his affidavit on oath as Ex.DW-1/1. In his such statement Muhammad Javaid Aslam Bajwa, Controller Examination has also tendered notification / attorney Ex.D-1, Meeting of Syndicate, Government College University, Faisalabad dated 15.03.2003 Ex.D-2, Letter No.VC/316 dated 30.08.2008 and 10.12.2003 as Ex.D-3, permission for the establishment of Faculty of Law EX.D-4, working agenda Ex.D-5, recognition of Law Department dated 08.06.06 as Ex.D-6, payment receipt of on lak rupees issued by NBP dated 26.06.2006 as Ex.D-7, Letter No.699 from PBC dated 31.10.2006 as Ex.D-8, letter No. GS(B) 8-1 from Governor Secretariat dated 27.04.2007 as Ex.D-9, letter No.472-GS(B)8-1 dated 16.05.2007 as Ex.D-10, letter No. GCU /287/VC dated 23.06.2007 as Ex.D-11, letter No. 02(PBC) as Ex.D-12, letter GCU/348/VC dated 04.01.2008 as Ex.D-13, letter No. GS (Uni) 8-1-07-21 dated 14.01.2008 as Ex.D-14, letter No. GS (Uni)8 1/07 dated 13.02.2008 as Ex.D-15, Letter PBC dated 13.02.2008 as Ex.D-16, letter Legal Education Committee No. VC/GCU/420 dated 30.04.2008 as Ex.D-17, Notification dated 21.11.2006 as Ex.D-18, contract service dated 13.09.2007 as Ex.D-19, Gazette of Pakistan dated 31.12.2005 as Ex.D-20, prospectus as Ex.D-21, Copy PBC as Mark-A dated 31.10.2006, letter dated 13.02.2008 as mark-B, letter Sargodha University dated 16.06.2007 as Mark-C, Establishment of Sargodha University dated 07.06.2007 as Mark-D, Brochure Consumer Court as Mark-E, letter No.149 recognition of Law Department as Mark-F, letter No.892 Secretary PBC dated 27.08.2008 as Mark-G, Office Order dated 27.12.2007 as Mark-H.
5. Heard the arguments, record perused.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant Mr. Muhammad Asim Sheikh, Advocate has vehemently argued that the claimant's future / career has been spoiled by the Authorities of the Government College University, Faisalabad due to defective and faulty services as the claimants were never made known that the L. L. B degree was not recognized by the Pakistan bar Council that therefore he has requested for award of exemplary damages to the claimants. Conversely, Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Malik, Advocate learned counsel for the defendants has strenuously opposed the claimant's case on three fold grounds that the "education" does not come under the purview of this Act as services rendered by the teacher not a kind of service and not described in section 2(k) of the Act as there is no contract of personal services so far as teaching of a student in an educational institution is concerned, that the claim is barred by law of limitation and that the University is making its hectic efforts in recognition of law faculty by the Pakistan Bar Council.
7. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and having glance on the evidence as produced by the parties, on critical appreciation of such evidence, it is crystal clear that the claimants got admission in the Law department in Government College University, Faisalabad in the year 2003, that they have passed such examination in the year 2006 but they came to know thereafter that the Law Department of Government College University, Faisalabad was not recognized by the Pakistan Bar Council despite the fact that they were ensured at the time of their admission that such degree was recognized from the concerned Authorities. Muhammad Javaid Aslam Bajwa, Controller Examination, Government College University, Faisalabad (DW-1) has admitted in his cross-examination that the Law Degree was not got recognized by the Pakistan Bar Council. He further elaborates that due to this fault of concerned Authorities of the Government College University, Faisalabad, the claimants could not appear as practicing lawyers in the courts.
However, Mr. Javaid Aslam Bajwa, DW-1 has explained that keeping in view the interest of the students, an application has been submitted in the Pakistan Bar Council for recognition of L.L.B degree and that efforts have also been made for recognition of such faculty by the Punjab Government. There is nothing to believe that the students / claimants were made aware that L.L.B degree was not recognized by the Pakistan Bar Council. In this regard, Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Malik, learned defendant's counsel has also submitted the undertaking for submission of the letter of law faculty of Government College University, Faisalabad within November, 2008 as soon as meeting of Pakistan Bar Council is convened.
8. From the critical appreciation of evidence on record produced from both sides it is crystal clear that: i. The students / claimants were admitted in the L.L.B course class in the Government College University, Faisalabad, they have paid full dues during their educational period there; ii. At the time of their admission in the said faculty, the students were not made known the degree was not recognized by the Supreme Court Bar Association; iii. According to the prevalent law of the land unless and until the degree is recognized by the Supreme Court Bar Association, the students are not entitled to be enrolled as practicing lawyers in the District Bar Associations; iv. The defendants did not get recognized the L.L.B degree by the Supreme Court to Association despite specific period provided by this court by them; v. The defendants are making efforts for recognition of the degree by the Supreme Court Bar Association but in futility.
10. In view of contention as raised by learned defendant's counsel the question of paramount importance is whether "education" is service within the purview of Act and whether the students being part and parcel of the education system may lodge the claim for faulty and defective services for compensation against their almamater? In this regard, it has been established on the evidence recorded that the University collected the fee for conducting the examinations, evaluation of necessary scripts and publishing results and awarding the degree. These are the services for which the University collected the examination fee. So, the University imparting and conducting exams against charging is within the arena of consumer's jurisdiction. Under such circumstance, as the services of university were hired for a consideration, hence, the answer to the above queries is in affirmative. The answer to the ancillary specific question such as whether holding of defective examinations, declaration of faulty results, non recognition of the degree by apex fora even of the same country etc falls within the definition of defective services, is also in affirmative as these issues are operational aspect of the basic matter. There is nothing on record to believe that the University made it known to the claimants that the L.L.B degree was not recognized by the Pakistan Bar Council leaving them at the mercy of fate incapacitated to be enrolled in District Bar Association hence the defective service has been provided as it was obligatory on the defendants to explain to the claimants about such fact at the time of their admissions. As the state machinery including the defendants did not move or moved not ineffectively and inefficiently for redressal of grievances of the students / claimants ignoring the fact that there future life was not stake having been spoiled due to deficient service of the defendants, the claimants have knocked at the door of this court in helplessness as a final resort which should prove for them a heaven instead of leaving them helpless, bewildered and shocked.
11. It appears to me to my entire satisfaction that recurring the cause of action has accrued to the claimants as they have time and again reminded the University Authorities to get redressed their grievances. Therefore, the time to be reckoned for limitation purposes would be reckoned from the last such refusal hence the claim could not be said time barred.
12. The contention that the University has been making efforts for recognition of law degree by the Supreme Court Bar Association is meaning less being epprobatic rapprobatic as on the one hand, the claim is stated by it to be based on flimsy grounds on above references, on the other hand, the grievances are deemed to be genuine by the University itself. Any how, such a plea may be considered for mitigating the quantum of compensation to the claimants.
13. The upshot of the above whole discussion is that, the claimant's case has been established to my full satisfaction as the educational institution i.e Government College University, Faisalabad has acted maliciously, oppressively and capriciously, it can not be allowed, as the consumer forum can not afford to become a silent spectator in such matters.
14. For what has been discussed above, the claim is hereby accepted in following terms: i. The claimants are held entitled to recover an amount of Rs.100,000/- each as loss of practice and job. ii. Rs.100,000/- each for mental peace, mental tension and loss of precious time. iii. Rs.50, 000/- each as damages for negligence of the opposite party. Total Rs.250, 000/- each from the defendants. The defendants shall pay the above said amount to the claimants within a period of thirty days; otherwise, they shall be dealt with U/S.32 (2) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005. With these observations file be consigned to the record room after its due completion.