KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 771/2016

JUDGMENT DATED: 30.10.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 175/2014 of DCDRC, Palakkad)

PRESENT:

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

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                                     : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

The Managing Director, Ahalya School of Engineering and Technology, Kozhippara, Palakkad-678 557.

(By Adv. Narayan R.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Akhilesh A., S/o Lakshmikutty, 155 B, Railway Quarters, Hemambika Nagar P.O., Kallekulangara, Palakkad-678 009.

(Party in person)

JUDGMENT

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

The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant in C.C. No. 175/2014on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (for short “the District Commission”).

2.  The respondent joined for the engineering course in the institution of the appellant on 25.07.2014 after making payment of an amount of Rs. 95,000/- (Rupees Ninety Five Thousand only) towards tuition fee, special fee and the other charges including caution deposit.  Thereafter, the respondent got admission in N.S.S. Engineering College, Sreekrishnapuram on spot allotment. Since there was some dispute with regard to the refund of the amount paid by the respondent, the respondent alleged deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. 

3.  The appellant filed version refuting the contentions in the complaint.  Both parties filed their respective proof affidavit.  Exhibits A1 to A7 series were marked for the respondent/complainant and Exhibits B1 to B3 were marked for the appellant.  After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the appellant to refund Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) along with Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) as costs. 

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 20.09.2016 passed by the District Commission in C.C. No. 175/2014 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

                                                                        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb