Claimant moved the present claim against the defendants to proceed against them against their defective and faulty services. According to the version of the claimant that he got admission in Sahiwal Tibbya College, Sahiwal in the year 2006 to obtain the degree of Fazil Tib & Jirahat consisting of four years. Allegedly defendants charges Rs. 100/- instead of Rs. 50/- in the head of prospectus. The defendants promised to give permit to carry on his own medical practice but later on they refused to do so. Defendant No.2 charged Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand rupees) instead of 6000/- (Six thousand rupees) but did not issue the receipt. Defendant No. 2 also received Rs.
11,000/- (Eleven thousand rupees) from the claimant on account of tuition fee and admission fee and receipt was not issued. Defendants received fee of third year illegally from the claimant whose receipt was issued by the defendants. The claimant alleged that during the tenure of second year Rs. 500/-(Five hundred rupees) per paper received by the defendants to pass him as illegal gain but same was not did by them. Claimant claimed that all the promised facilities were not provided by the defendants. Allegedly defendants charged him fine due to absence from the college. The claimant severed the legal notice on the defendants but they did not response hence the present claim.
2. The defendants were summoned and they submitted their written statement. Defendants contended that claimant do not fall within the definition envisaged by Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005. It is also contended that this court has no jurisdiction to try this case. It is also contended that claimant did not mention the date when cause of action arose in his favour and against the defendants and furthermore claim is time barred and liable to be dismissed.
3. Claimant recorded his statement as PW-1, Syed Tamtraq Mahasan as Pw-2, Syed Usman as Pw- 3, copy of the legal notice as Ex-P1, annual inspection report as Ex -P2, date sheet of second year as Ex-P3, annual inspection National Council as Ex-P4, receipt of receiving of Rs. 1000/- as Ex-P5 and Prospectus as Ex-P6, fee slips Mark A to Mark D and closed the claimant's evidence. From the contrary side defendant No. 3 appeared on behalf of all the defendants as Dw-1. He deposed and recorded his statement in support of defendant's version. He also produced cancellation of enrollment as Ex-R1, admission form as Ex-R2, an affidavit as Ex-R3, copy of Gazette year 2009 as Ex-R4, application of claimant as Ex-R5 and closed the defendant's evidence.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. During arguments learned counsel for the defendants produced an authority /ruling PLD 2011 Lahore 239 of the Honourable Lahore High Court in the case of Allama Iqbal University through Vice Chancellor and 04 others Vs Irfan Boota and another. In this judgment it has been clearly held by the Honourable Lahore High Court that complainant being a student, was not a Consumer as defined by clause (C) of S.2 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 and services provided by the university also did not fall within the definition of "services" contained in clause (k) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 as educational institution could not be described to have undertaken commercial activity. Definition of the term consumer in clause (c) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 contemplated hiring of services for a consideration and the definition was not applicable to the matter wherein a student had submitted application for appearing in any examination to be conducted by and educational institution. Neither the student appearing in the examination held by the university could be described as a consumer as defined in S. 2 (c) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, nor the university or educational institution was a service provider as envisaged in the provisions of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005. The judgment delivered by the Honourable Lahore High Court relied upon a judgment of foreign court in the case of University of Jammu and others Vs Brinder Nath and others AIR 2000 J&K 93 rel.
6. In view of all the above circumstances. The claim lodged by the claimant for the grievance raised in his claim is not entertainable by the Consumer Court hence this claim is dismissed.
7. File be consigned after its due completion.