Delhi

StateCommission

FA/622/2013

FIITJEE LTD. & ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AKANKSHA SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

30 Mar 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision:20.01.2016

Appeal No. 861/13

 

(Arising out of the order dated 28.06.2013 passed in Complaint Case No.812/2007 by the

District Consumer Redressal Forum-II, Delhi.)

In the matter of:

M/s. FIITJEE Limited,

29-A, Kalu Sarai, ICES House,

Sarvapriya Vihar,

New Delhi-110006.                                                                   …..........Appellant

 

Versus

Mr. Pushpender Verma,

R/o H.No. 351, Sector-351,

Sector-15A, Faridabad,

Haryana.                                                                                  ….....Respondent

                                                                

CORAM

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

S. C. Jain, Member

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1. The short question involved in the present case is whether education institutions are covered by Consumer Protection Act. The same stands concluded by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.22532/2012 titled P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Allen Charitable Trust & Ors. decided on 09.08.2012.  After considering the previous judgement in Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 210 (11) SCC 159 it was 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 of services. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the consumer Protection Act.

 

2. That is what the appellant/OP is seeking in the present appeal.  District Forum directed appellant to refund fee of Rs.87,641/- after deducting non refundable service tax for the unattended two years  of the course alongwith interest @9% per annum from 14.05.2007 till date of refund, Rs.15,000/- as compensation for physical and mental agony. 

 

3. The respondent tried to make distinction that private institutions stands on different footing than government educational institutions which award degree and certificate. As compared to them private institutions give coaching only and enable students to compete in the admission test. The same has also been considered by three members bench of National Commission in Revision Petition No. 2054/13 titled as FIITJEE Ltd. Vs. Harish Soni, decided on 17.07.2015.  That was a case pertaining to appellant institutions. Per majority decisions it was held that private institutions are also not covered by Consumer Protection Act.

 

4. The respondent tried to canvass that appellant’s plea that it suffers loss when students leave classes in between is not well founded.  The reason being that institutions like appellant always keep a provision for such vacations while scheduling its structure of fees.  It is not necessary to enter into said Controversy when consumer courts have no jurisdiction.

 

5. As a result of the above discussion, the impugned order is not sustainable. The appeal is accepted and impugned order is set aside. The complaint is dismissed.

 

6. One copy of this order be sent to both the parties and one copy be sent to the District Forum for information also.

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

                         

 

                                                                                                          (S. C. Jain)         Member

 

 

245.