N.K.GOYLE vs REGISTRAR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOCY, BOMBAY

BEING aggrieved by the inadequate relief granted to him the appellant complainant has preferred this appeal against the order of District Forum, Bombay dated 10.5.90.

ON the basis of the facts as can be found in the impugned order, the appellant has approached the District Forum for various relief''s of compensation and cost. According to appellant he had entrusted the home-made model of folding crash helmet being used by riders of two wheelers, to Indian Institute of Technology (for short IIT) for Technical improvement, Testing, developing with a view to make it a marketable item in the modem world. He paid the necessary charges of Rs. 11,265/- and also supplied the P.V.C. sheets of Rs. 2,490/- and Rs. 1,500/- on two occasions at his costs to I.I.T. for the experiment. In return I.I.T. undertook to do the job within two and half months time. Complainant expected the finish product to be placed in international exhibition to be held in Bulgaria. But the Helmet could not be completed in all respects according to the expectation of appellant and hence he moved various authorities to seek the relief against the failure of I.I.T. to give him required service in stipulated time. Ultimately, he filed the complaint in question. The I.I.T. in their reply denied the allegations of complainant and submitted that it was on trial and error method, the work was entrusted to Prof. V.P. Bapat of the I.I.T. for development of the helmet. According to I T I. they do not have ISI Standard Testing equipment and the work was accepted as an experiment at the risk of complainant and hence not liable for any compensation.

The complainant placed on record in the list of exhibits his correspondence since 14.5.1982 till the date of filing complaint with I.I.T., Government Consumer Guidance Society and others including the copy of his writ petition filed in High Court vide Writ Petition No. 1084 of 1987. We do not know whether the said writ is pending in High Court or not, but we find much of the multifarious issues and its solution does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Quasi-Judicial Forum created under the Consumer Protection Act. We do not blame the complainant as it is found that he may have the genuine cause and genuine reasons to put forward his genuine invention of a consumer product for more Scientist Tests and Development through I.I.T., but one thing has to be taken into consideration that the I.I.T. is neither the "manufacturer" nor ''Trader" within the meaning of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act. However, under the Institute of Technology Act, 1961, it is declared as Institution of Technology of National Importance and under sub-Clause (9) of. Section 6(1) of the said Act, can provide for instruction and research in the branches of Engineering and Technology. But its paramount character is that of an educational institution. Therefore, the allegations leveled by complainant and his expectations from such an Educational Institution are misplaced and beyond the jurisdictional scope of Consumer Protection Act. However, we find that u/S. 4(1) of the Institute of Technology Act, 1961 it is a body corporate and can be sued in its name and enter into contract and therefore to that limited reference can be said to have not rendered the service to complainant. Hence we find that the learned District Forum was right in their limited jurisdiction to award the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant. We therefore have no hesitation to maintain the order of District Forum.

WE have considered the lengthy and elaborate grounds and submission of appellant catalogued in the name of appeal. But we are afraid that within our limited jurisdiction of summary method of trials we are not equipped to consider and decide the technical submissions of appellant. It will entail detail enquiry and it will be beyond the scope of our limited jurisdiction. We are therefore of the view that there is no substance in the grounds of appeal and hence dismiss it However, we maintain the order of District Forum, Bombay. We would like to observe that looking to the genuine pain taking endeavour of appellant in the field of invention and technology, he is permitted to agitate his grievance at the appropriate level. With this observation, we dismiss this appeal with no order as to cost.

THE copy of the order be sent free of costs to both parties. Appeal dismissed.