Notice issued to the complainant has been received back. None has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 08.12.14.

This is a 2009 case. Therefore, we proceed to decide the case on merits.  

The complaint is against the OP No.1 which is an Educational Institution and the OP No.2 which is a College of Engineering.  The grievance is with regard to non-refund of  Rs.35972/- minus Rs.3000/- by the OP No.2 to the complainant on the ground that the rest of the fee had been forfeited.

 OP No.1 is exparte. In reply OP No.2 has inter-alia stated that OP No.2 is affiliated to Maharishi Dayanand University and the courses offered by OP No.2 are approved by OP No.1 and Directorate of Technical Education, Govt. of Haryana and is accredited by National Board of Accreditation. 

In the rejoinder to the reply of OP No.2 the complainant has not denied these facts.

 Averments made in the pleadings have been reiterated in the respective affidavits of the complainant and the Principal of OP No.2.

In Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, MANU/SC/0485/2010: 2010 (11) SCC 159, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that education is not a commodity; educational institutions are not providing any kind of service and, therefore, in the matter of admission, fees, etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service and such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  When education is not a commodity, the question raised by the complainant in the
complaint on the same analogy cannot be looked into and decided by this Forum.  Therefore, we hold that the complaint is without any merit.

          In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs. File be consigned to record room.