KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 191/2022

JUDGMENT DATED: 08.11.2024

(Against the Order in RA 5/21 in C.C. 87/2020 of DCDRC, Kasaragod)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR            : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                                     : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

The Director, Karnataka Examination Authority, 18^th Cross Road, Sampige Road, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560 012, Karnataka.

(By Adv. Praveen Vyasan)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Adarsh Ram, S/o Ramakrishnan K., Nellithave House, Kuttikole P.O., Chengala via, Kasaragod Taluk and District.

2. Ramakrishnan K., S/o Chandu Nair, Nellithave House, Kuttikole P.O., Chengala via, Kasaragod Taluk and District.

3. The Principal, Vydehi Institute of Dental Science and Research Centre, 82, EPIP Area, Nallura Hall, Mahadepura, White Field Road, Bangalore, Karnataka.

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  : PRESIDENT

The appellant is the 1^st opposite party and the respondents 1 and 2 are respectively the complainants and the 3^rd respondent is the 2^nd opposite party in C.C. No. 87/2020 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod (for short “the District Commission”).

2.  The 1^st respondent got admission to BDS course in the institution run by the opposite parties.  There was a dispute in connection with the relieving of the 1^st respondent from the institution of the appellant, when the 1^st respondent got admission in another institution.  Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 filed the above complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. 

3.  The respondent filed proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A3 were marked for the respondent.  After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the appellant to refund an amount of Rs. 52,500/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred only) and pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the respondent/complainant. As per order dated 11.08.2021, the District Commission directed the 2^nd opposite party to pay the above said amount.  However, as per order dated 15.01.2022, the said order was reviewed by the District Commission and in the operative portion of order dated 11.08.2021, the words ‘Opposite Party No. 2’ had been corrected as ‘Opposite Party No. 1’, who is the appellant herein.  

4.  Heard.  Perused the records.

5.       The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the institution of the appellant is an educational institution recognized by the University, the respondent would not come within the ambit of ‘consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and consequently, the order passed by the District Commission cannot be sustained.  The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“the National Commission” for short) in Manu Solanki and others Vs. Vinayaka Mission University reported in 1 (2020) CPJ 210 (NC) to support his argument.  In paragraph 51 of the Manu Solanki and others (supra), the National Commission held as hereinbelow:-

“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”. 

6.  The institution of the appellant is admittedly an institution imparting education.  Therefore, in view of the decision of the National Commission in Manu Solanki and others (supra), the institution of the appellant would not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.  Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent is not maintainable.  Therefore, the order passed by the District Commission is liable to be set aside.  Accordingly, the order passed by the District Commission stands set aside.  Since the complaint is found to be not maintainable, we are not entering into the merits of the case.  

In the result, this appeal stands allowed, the order dated 15.01.2022 passed by the District Commission in C.C. No. 87/2020 stands set aside and the complaint stands dismissed as not maintainable. 

The statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be refunded to the appellant, on proper acknowledgment. 

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT

                                                                  AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

jb                                                                     RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER