Sri Ashoke Kumar Pal, President

The case of the complainants in short is that the Complainant No.2 is the son of the Complainant No.1 and the OP No.1 runs an institute for assistance of job and training customer servicing agent and as technician in Airlines.  The OP No.2 is the sister concern of OP No.1 and OP No.3 runs an institute at Secundrabad for Pilot Training, Aircraft Maintenance Engineering etc. under the guidelines of DGCA, Hyderabad, Govt. of India.  The claimants being impressed by an advertisement published in the newspaper “Time of India” dated 19.04.2007 visited an Educational Fair at Ice Skating Rink at Kolkata held from 06.06.2008 to 08.06.2008.  The complainants talked with OP No.3 and came to know about the details of the 3-years course of Air Craft Maintenance Engineering.  The OP No.3 assured them that after completion of the course they will provide assistance of job / placement.  The complainants sent a Demand Draft of Rs.500/- to the OP No.3 and in return the OP No.3 sent an application form along with booklet and a brochure to the complainants. Thereafter the complainants sent different demand drafts on different dates as per the requirement to complete the 3-years course.  The Complainant No.2 successfully completed 3-years full time practical training course and accordingly, a certificate along with experience certificate and consolidated marks of memorandum to that effect has been issued by Flytech Aviation Academy, Hyderabad.  The Complainant in all deposited Rs.5,13,700/- out of which Rs.67,000/- is refundable.  Subsequently, the complainant came to know that OP No.1 runs an institute at Jadavpur, Kolkata for the    purpose of assistance of job in any Airlines and one month Advance training programme in Airport Ground Operation Management.  But ultimately no placement of job assistance has been provided to the Complainant No.2 despite payment of huge amount of payment by demand drafts on different dates and hence this case.

The OPs contested this case by filing W/V and evidence on affidavit.  It was this specific case of OPs that the Complainant No.2 successfully completed the training and for which a certificate was accordingly issued.  It was also the contention of the OP that they never assured the complainants to give assistance or placement of job.  It was also the contention of the OPs that the Complainant No.2 did not attend on two occasions of campus placement.  It was also argued by the OPs that Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service and as such the complainants cannot be termed as “Consumer” and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs does not arise.  The OPs also denied the other material averment of the petition of complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint case as not maintainable

Points for consideration:-

1. Are the complainants consumers?
2. Are the O.Ps. guilty of deficiency in service?
3. Are the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons:-

Point No. 1 & 2 : - Both the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and as they are interlinked.

On perusal of the record along with the documents filed by the complainants it appears that the complainant was admitted in 3-years course in Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering.  Now the question is whether the complainants are “Consumer” as defined in Consumer Protection Act.

It was the argument of the Ld. Lawyers of the OPs that the complainants of this case cannot be termed as “Consumer” as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.  As the Education is not a commodity and the Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service, there cannot be a question of deficiency in service.  Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act.

Now let us go through the following citations to come to a definite conclusion on these points :-

1. Pijush Kanti Mondal and Anr. Vs. The Principal Meghnad Saha Institute of Technology and Anr., in Complaint Case No:CC/10/2018, decided on 08.05.2019 by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal forum at Baruipur, South 24 PArganas.
2. Guru Gobind Singh College of Education vs. Rajveer Singh (First Appeal No.669 of 2012), date of decision 13.01.2014.
3. P.T.Koshi & Anr. Vs. Eleen Charitable Trust & Ors, reported in 2012 (3) CPC 615 (sC).
4. Maharshi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010(11) SCC 159=2010(2) CPC 696 S.C.,
5. Jaipreet Singh vs. FIIT JEE Ltd., First Appeal No.21 of 2015 date of decision 02.02.2015.
6. Mayank Tiwari vs.FIIT JEE Ltd., Revision Petition No.4335 of 2-014, decided on 08.12.2014,
7. Koshy and anr. Vs. Regional Institute of Co-operative Management’s Cases,
8. Herleen Kaur vs. Dashmesh Institute of Research and Dental Science and others, first Appeal No.102 of 2016, date of decision 17.02.2017,
9. Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj vs. Manisha Pandey and ors. Writ-C No.-49948 of 2008 date of Order 11.12.2018.
10. M.J.P. Rohalkhand University vs. Ravindra Kr. Jaiswal, reported in II 2019 CPJ 40 (NC).

After careful scrutiny of all the citations as referred herein before it is crystal clear that the Complainant No.2 being a student does not fall within the definition of a “consumer” nor the OPs being educational institution cannot be said to be service providers, as the education is not a commodity and, as such, the consumer complaint is not maintainable.  As the educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, the question of deficiency in service cannot arise at all.  As  a “student” does not satisfy the definition of “Consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act and as the educational institutions do not render any service to its students, there cannot be any complaint of deficiency in service and complaint before the District Forum is wholly without jurisdiction and not maintainable.  Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharshi Dayanand University (Supra) has held that respondent, as a student, is neither “Consumer” nor University is rendering any service to its students, therefore, Consumer Forum have no jurisdiction to entertain complaint.

Therefore, having regard to the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and in view of the discussions made therein before we are of the firm opinion that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as the same is not maintainable.

Both the points are thus decided in favour of the OPs and against the complainants.

Point No.3 : - As the Point No.1 & 2 have been decided in favour of the OP and against the complainants, there is no necessity to enter into the merit of the case.  As the instant case is not maintainable as discussed herein before and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of this nature, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainants are not entitled  to get the relief as prayed for.  Point No.3 is thus decided in favour of the OPs and against the complainants.

In the result, the case of the complainants fails.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is,

ORDERED

That the complaint case be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest as not maintainable.  We pass no order as to cost.

Let a copy of the order be supplied free of cost to both the parties as per rules.               

The Final order will be made available in www.confonet.nic.in .

Dictated and corrected by me

 President