KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 616/2018
JUDGMENT DATED: 25.11.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 166/2017 of DCDRC, Idukki)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- The Principal, Munnar Catering College, Munnar, Thachankary Hills, Sooryanelly P.O., Munnar, Devikulam Taluk, Idukki.
- The Manager, Munnar Catering College, Munnar, Thachankary Hills, Sooryanelly P.O., Munnar, Devikulam Taluk, Idukki.
(By Adv. Lal K. Joseph and Adv. R. Suja Madhav)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- Alan Thomas, S/o Thomas, Ethackattu House, Pandapara Kara, Thankamany Village, Pandipara P.O., Idukki.
- Thomas, S/o Joseph, Ethackattu House, Pandapara Kara, Thankamany Village, Pandipara P.O., Idukki.
(By Adv. Rajmohan C.S.)
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondents are the complainants in C.C. No. 166/2017 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Idukki (for short “the District Commission”).
2. The 1st respondent joined the three years diploma course in Hotel Management and Catering Technology for the year 2017-2020 in the institution of the 1st appellant by paying an amount of Rs. 78,000/- (Rupees Seventy Eight Thousand only) as initial fees. At the time of admission, the appellants assured that education loan would be arranged. However, no such education loan was arranged by the appellants. Banks also did not give education loan. In the said circumstances, the respondents approached the appellants for refund of the amount and for getting back the certificates. However, the appellants were not prepared to return the certificates and fees. In the said circumstances, the respondents alleged deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.
3. The appellants did not file version before the District Commission.
4. PW1 was examined and Exhibits P1 to P5 were marked for the respondents. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the appellants to refund an amount of Rs. 73,000/- (Rupees Seventy Three Thousand only) with 12% interest per annum and pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) and costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondents/complainants. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed.
5. Heard. Perused the records.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that since the institution of the appellants is an educational institution recognized by the University, the respondents 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, sports etc. except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act”.
7. The institution of the appellants 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 appellants would not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondents 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 31.07.2018 passed by the District Commission in C.C. No. 166/2017 stands set aside and the complaint stands dismissed as not maintainable.
The statutory deposit made by the appellants shall be refunded to the appellants, on proper acknowledgment.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
jb RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
