DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __10 _ OF ___2018
DATE OF FILING :_24.1.2018 DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 08.05.2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : 1. Pijush Kanti Mondal, House name-Abokash, Vill. Nazirabad, P.O Uchhepota, P.S Sonarpur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Kolkata-150.
2. Swetabja Mondal, House name-Abokash, Vill. Nazirabad, P.O Uchhepota, P.S Sonarpur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Kolkata-150.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. The Principal, Meghnad Saha Institute of Technology, Techno Complex, Madurdaha, Beside NRI Complex, P.O Uchhepota, P.S Sonarpur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Kol-150.
2. The Chairman , Techno India, EM-4/1, Sector-V, Salt Lake, P.O Sech Bhawan S.O, P.S Electronics Complex Police Station, Kolkata-91.
_________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Facts leading to the filing of the instant case, as it stands revealed in the amended version of the complaint, may be epitomized as follows.
Complainant -1 got his son i.e complainant-2 admitted to Meghnad Saha Institute of Technology, the college of O.P-1 in computer science and engineering. At the time of admission, they paid an amount of Rs.65000/- as the first semester fee and within this amount is also included a sum of Rs.25000/- as caution money. Complainant no. 2 has completed his course in the said college. O.P-1 has not refunded the caution money inspite of repeated requests by the complainant. That’s why, the complainant has filed the instant case ,praying for payment of compensation etc. Hence, this case.
O.P-2 has not turned up to contest the case inspite of service of notice upon him and , therefore, the case proceeds exparte against him.
It is O.P-1 who has filed written statement, wherein it is contended that the case is not maintainable in law against an educational institution. According to him, the complainant no.2 was admitted to his institution for pursuing computer science and engineering degree. He paid Rs.65000/- as fee during admission including Rs.25000/- as caution money. That apart, the complainant no.2 also got himself admitted to an additional programme for development of soft and technical skills in order to get an additional edge in cracking campus interviews. The course fee of that additional programme is Rs.6250/-per annum and the entire caution deposit has been adjusted with payment of fees for that additional programme. As the case is not maintainable in law, the complainants are not entitled to get any decree as prayed for. The case deserves to be dismissed in limini.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the case maintainable in law?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps as alleged by the complainants?
- Are the complainants entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Petition of complaint is treated as evidence of the complainant vide his petition dated 17.4.2018, kept in the record. O.P-1 has filed evidence on affidavit which is kept in the record. Questionnaires, replies and BNA filed herein are also kept in the record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 , 2 & 3 :
It has been contended on behalf of the contesting O.P that the complainants are not consumers and, therefore, the case is not maintainable in law against them.
Let us see now whether the case is at all maintainable in law or not. It is to be seen now, whether imparting of education by any educational institution can be regarded as hiring of service or not. The matter is no longer res-integra and such matter has fallen into consideration so many times of the Hon’ble Apex Court of the country and also the Hon’ble Apex Commission . In the case of P.T Koshi & Anr. Vs. Eleen Charitable Trust & Ors, reported in 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows :
“In view of the judgment of this court, in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur , 2010 (11) SCC 159, wherein this court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in the matter of admission, fees etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency in service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petition. Thus the Special Leave Petition is dismissed”.
The above view of the Hon’ble Apex Court has also been relied on by the Hon’ble Apex National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of M.J.P Rohalkhand University Vs. Ravindra Kumar Jaiswal , reported in II 2019 CPJ 40(NC).
Placing reliance upon the ratio decidendi as promulgated by the Hon’ble Apex court and the Hon’ble Apex Commission, we feel constrained to hold that the complainants are not consumers and O.P-1 Institution is not service providers. This being so, the instant case appears to be not maintainable in law and ,therefore, the complainants are deemed to be not entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed for.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against O.P-1 and dismissed exparte against the O.P-2 without any cost.
Registrar-In-Charge of this Forum is directed to deliver a copy of the judgment free of cost to the parties concerned.
President
I / We agree
Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
