ORDER

29.11.2024

Sh. RAJESH, MEMBER.

1. Present complaint has been filed by complainant seeking a direction to the opposite party to issue in his favour the degree of MBA to complainant, refund of Rs. 30,000/- charged for placement service and compensation amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- against mental agony and harassment.
2. It is stated that complainant is an aspirant of MBA who has been enrolled as a student of MBA course in industry integrated from the Academy of Technology and Management (OP1) affiliated to Madurai Kamra University (OP2 and OP3) in the year 2008 and passed in year 2010.
3. It is stated that in respect of the same the complainant has paid the requisite fee as well as tuition fee for the said course and has completed by giving proper examination as required for completion of the degree and in extra a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was paid for the placement of the complainant. But the OP neither placed the complainant with any job nor was the fee for the same refunded back to complainant.
4. It is stated that after completion of the course and after awaiting for two years the complainant paid the requisite fee amounting to Rs. 1,000/- vide Demand Draft No. 773390 dated 11.04.2012 for receiving of the degree but didn’t receive the same till date.
5. Complainant has also filed a letter dated 11.10.2024 issued by Sate Bank of India Neelam Chowk Main Brach Faridabad showing that aforesaid demand draft was cleared in favour of OP2.   
6. That complainant also sent a legal notice dated 30.04.2013 but of no avail. Hence the present complainant seeking aforesaid reliefs.
7. Notice was issued to OPs. OP1 filed detailed Written Statement denying all the allegations made against him in the complaint by the complainant. Despite service OP1 and OP2 neither appeared nor filed their Written Statement, therefore, proceeded Ex Parte vide order dated 16.04.2018.  
8. It is stated by OP1 that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP1 while giving proper services to the complainant. It is further stated that OP1 rendered its complete service to the complainant and the complainant never raised any objection regarding his placement. The OP1 provided him ample opportunity to appear in the interviews conducted by various companies but on one pretext or the other the complainant never appeared for any interview as the was interested in Govt. Job since beginning and he was preparing for the same.
9. It is stated that on few opportunities when the OP1 informed the complainant regarding the Job fairs and interviews the complainant chose not to attend the interviews by making excuse that he is out of town and not available for the interview.
10. It is stated that as per placement rules if the students misses more than 50 interviews of companies in such condition the students shall first deposit Rs. 1000 fine per company and then only can be eligible for any other placement interviews.
11. It is stated that OP1 organized many interviews in association with various companies but complainant never bothered to be a part of those interviews. It is stated that the OP1 placed many students by conducting Job fairs and no such complaint ever received by OP1 in last 5 years. It is stated that complainant has filed present false and frivolous complaint against the OP1 with an ulterior motive to make money by blackmailing the OP1.
12. It is stated that complainant has no prima facie case as alleged against the OP1 and hence present complaint is liable to be dismissed at the very outset.  It is stated that the OP1 possesses goodwill and have an established market and have assumed a good reputation over the years in respect of the business which they carry out. It is stated that the allegations made against the OP1 in complaint filed by complainant are vague and general in nature. It is sated that no specific averments are made and the allegations are ambiguous.
13. It is stated that allegations of the complainant that OP1 didn’t hand over his Degree is also false. It is stated that in order to get the degree student have to apply directly to the university with Demand Draft as university does not issue degree to the college. Only university verifies the students’ details from the college and request to send the provisional letter, however, with respect to complainant the OP1 never received the same till date.
14. It is stated that allegations made in the complaint are false and without any basis. The complainant has filed present complaint against the OP1 with ulterior motives to take undue advantage. It is further submitted that the complaint does not disclose any cause of action against the OP and is liable to be dismissed against the OP1.
15. On merits also the grounds taken in preliminary objections have been reiterated.
16. Complainant and OP1 have led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and also filed brief synopsis of their written arguments.
17. We have perused the record available before us and heard arguments of parties and judgment was reserved.
18. The core issue which arises for consideration in the present complaint is whether OPs have committed deficiency in service by not delivering the MBA Degree and charging the complainant for placement service within the definition of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
19. As per the averments made in the present complaint and record available before us, the complainant has alleged that he has paid the requisite fee despite that OPs didn’t deliver the MBA degree to complainant despite the fact that complainant has passed MBA Examination. It is also alleged that OP1 charged Rs. 30,000/- on account of extra fees against placement service but OP1 didn’t provide any placement service. Therefore, complainant alleged that OPs are liable for deficiency in services.
20. In order to substantiate his allegations the complainant has placed on record the mark sheet of MBA Programme issued by OP2 and OP3 in favour of the complainant and payment proof of fees to OP 2 against issuance of degree.  
21. In nutshell the grievance of the complainant is that he successfully pursued MBA from OPs in the year and was charged Rs. 30,000/- by OP1 for placement service, however, he was neither provided placement nor the degree of MBA. OP1 has stated that complainant never applied for MBA degree to University i.e. OP2 and OP3.
22. At this juncture it is relevant to discuss the law laid by Hon’ble Higher Courts. In Deepak Tyagi & 14 Ors. vs Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji Education decided on 20 January, 2020 Hon’ble NCDRC laid as follows:-

51.     In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport, etc. except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

23. In Maharshi Dayanand University Vs Surjeet kaur MANU/SC/0485/2010: 2010 (11) SCC 159 : 2010 (2)  696 S.C Hon’ble Supreme 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 matter of admission, fees etc.,       there cannot be a kind of service therefore, in      matter      of admission, fee etc., there cannot be a       question of deficiency of service.  Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the 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."

24.  In Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Anr. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (1993) 1 SCC 645, dated 04.02.1993, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that Education has never been a commerce in this country and that establishing an Educational Institution can neither be a trade or business nor can it be a profession within the meaning of article 19 (1) (g), it was held that "Education" in its truest aspect is more a mean and a vocation rather than a profession or trade or business, however, wide may be the denotation of the two later words.
25. In Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC 483, where it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that:-

"that the Board is not a `service provider' and a student who takes an examination is not a `consumer' and consequently, complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board."

26. Hon'ble National Commission in its judgment dated 17.12.2017 rendered in Revision Petition No. 3144 of 2016; Krishan Mohan Goyal Vs. St. Mary's Academy and another, has discussed the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur reported in (2010) 11 SCC 159, in which it has been laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court that a student is neither a consumer, nor the University is rendering any service, relying on the decision given in the case of Bihar School Examination Board (supra). Relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:

"The respondent as a student is neither a consumer nor is the appellant rendering any service. The claim of the respondent to award B.Ed. degree was almost in the nature of a relief praying for a direction to the appellant to act contrary to its own rules. The National Commission, in our opinion, with the utmost respect to the reasoning given therein did not take into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and thus, arrived at a wrong Appeal No. Sri Dev Suman University 02.08.2023 35 of 2019 Vs. Sh. Bharat Bhushan & Anr.

The case decided by this Court in Bihar School Examination Board (supra) clearly lays down the law in this regard with which we find ourselves in full agreement with. Accordingly, the entire exercise of entertaining the complaint by the District Forum and the award of relief which has been approved by the National Commission do not conform to law and we, therefore, set aside the same."

27. Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 17802 of 2017; Anupama College of Engineering Vs. Gulshan Kumar and others, decided on 30.10.2017, has held that in view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University (supra), wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments, has categorically held that educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency in service and such matter cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
28. Hon'ble National Commission in its latest judgment rendered in the case of Director of Xavier Institute of Management & Entrepreneurship Kinfra Hi-Tech Park and others Vs. Sujay Ghose reported in III (2022) CPJ 6 (NC), has specifically held that the Educational Institute does not fall within purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as it is not rendering any services. While coming to the above conclusion, Hon'ble National Commission has relied upon a decision of Larger Bench of three Members of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Manu Solanki and others Vs. Vinayak Mission University and  Sri Dev Suman University 02.08.2023 35 of 2019 Vs. Sh. Bharat Bhushan & Anr. other connected cases reported in I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC), wherein the Larger Bench has held that educational matters do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.
29. In the case of Rajendra Kumar Gupta Vs. Dr. Virendra Swarup Public School and Anr., 2021 2 CPR (NC) 217 the Hon'ble National Commission has held that "it may be mentioned here that this issue has been considered and decided by a larger Bench of three Members of this Commission in the case of Manu Solanki and Ors. v Vinayaka Mission University and other connected cases, I (2020) CPJ 210, wherein the larger Bench had held that Educational matters do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore, the Complaint is not maintainable.
30. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case as well as the law laid down in the case of Bihar School Examination Board (supra); Maharshi Dayanand University (supra); Anupama College of Engineering (supra) and Director of Xavier Institute of Management & Entrepreneurship Kinfra Hi-Tech Park and others (supra) and Rajendra Kumar Gupta (supra), it is crystal clear that the appellant - University is neither "service provider", nor the respondent No. 1 - complainant being a private student is a "consumer". Accordingly, we are of the view that the matter in question cannot be brought before the Consumer Fora.
31. In view of above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that since the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs, therefore, present complaint is dismissed as not maintainable and hence same is dismissed.
32. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry.

Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Commission on 29.11.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                                                RAJESH

PRESIDENT                                                       MEMBER