Haryana

Ambala

CC/314/2022

BIRINDER SINGH KAMBOJ. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMITY UNIVERSITY. - Opp.Party(s)

P.S SHARMA

30 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

                                                          Complaint case no.         :    314 of 2022

                                                          Date of Institution           :     04.08.2022

                                                          Date of decision    :     30.08.2022.

1. Birinder Singh Kamboj aged 54 years s/o Sh.Babu Ram Kamboj
2. Harshit Kamboj aged 19 years s/o Sh. Birinder Singh Kamboj

Both residents of H.No. 46, Vikas Vihar, Ambala City.

                                                                                      ……. Complainants.

                                                Versus

1. Amity University, Noida through its Vice Chancellor, Sector-125, Noida (UP) 2.  Registrar, Amity University, Noida, Sector-125, Noida (UP) .

                                                                                       ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.            

                            

Present:       Shri Prem Sagar Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the                                     complainants.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainants have filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

 i) To pay Rs.79,000/- as balance amount on account of withdrawal of the admission as per the UGC guidelines circulated in July 2021 along with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. from the date of applying for withdrawal of admission till its payment.

ii) To pay Rs.50,000/- for mental torture and harassment;

iii) To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation charges.

                                      OR

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

2.           Brief facts of the case are that complainant No.2 got admission in the OP University for B.Com programme in September, 2021 and paid Rs.1,00,000/- (for the desired course on 10-9-2021 and the date of registration is 13-9-2021. Thereafter the complainant No.2 got admission in due course at Delhi University on 16-11-2021 and accordingly he applied for withdrawal of his admission from OP University on the University Portal on 19-11-2021 (Withdrawal No.319895 and its form No is 9518004). The said form, duly filled up in prescribed format along with cancelled cheque as per the requirement was uploaded by him. The UGC released the guidelines in July 2021 regarding the refund of the Fee for the academic year 2021-2022 and the relevant portion of the guidelines is reproduced hereunder :-

“….Keeping in view the prevailing situation due to the COVID-19 pandemic; the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding the cancellation of School Board examinations for class/grade-XII; the earlier order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholding the UGC's guidelines of July 6, 2020 regarding terminal semester/ final year examinations; the earlier UGC guidelines on examination and academic calendar dated April 29, 2020, July 6, 2020 and September 24, 2020; and, the larger interest of students, the following guidelines are being issued by the UGC in respect of examinations and the academic calendar for universities, colleges and institutions deemed to be universities (who are collectively called "Higher Education Institutions" in these guidelines) in continuation of the earlier guidelines.

In view of the financial hardships being faced by parents due to lockdowns and related factors, a full refund of fee should be made on account of all cancellations of admissions/ migrations of students upto October 31, 2021 for the academic session 2021-2022 as a special case. It is made clear that the entire fee, including all charges, should be refunded (i.e. there should be zero cancellation charges) on account of cancellations/ migrations up to October 31, 2021.Thereafter,on cancellation/withdrawal of admissions up to December 31, 2021, the entire fee collected from a student should be refunded in full after deducting not more than Rs.1000/- as processing fee….."

 

Thus, as per the UGC guidelines, the complainants are entitled to refund of the entire fee except deduction of Rs.1,000/- as the complainants have applied for withdrawal and refund of admission fee vide application dated 19-11-2021. After withdrawal of the admission from the OP through online portal, the complainant contacted the officials of the OP on telephone for the refund of the fee, but no action was taken by it. After repeated requests/ reminders and calls, the OP has refunded only Rs.20,000/- on 22-12-2021 for the security deposit and refused to refund the remaining amount, which amounts to deficiency in rendering services and unfair trade practice. Thereafter as per the UGC guidelines, the complainant No.1 made a written complaint to the OP on 31-3-2022 with copy endorsed to Chairman, UGC; Secretary, UGC and Vice Chancellor, Amity University through E-mail dated 31-3-2022 as well through registered post along with the UGC guidelines of July 2021 and the withdrawal application. On 31-3-2022 the complaint of the complainants was forwarded by the UGC through E-mail to Vice Chancellor, Amity University and Secretary Amity University with direction to resolve the issue as per UGC guidelines on academic calendar for the 1st year of undergraduate and Postgraduate student of the Universities for the session 2020-2021; 2021-2022 in view of COVID-19 pandemic and submit their comment at the earliest to the applicant directly. Thereafter, the complainants gave reminder on 22-4-2022 and 25-4-2022, which was again forwarded by UGC to the OP on 25-4-2022 but to no avail. Resultantly, the complainants made a complaint to the Grievance Cell under the University Grants Commission vide Grievance ID No. GRIEVANCE-STU-2022-94085-1 dated 12-5-2022, which was closed by the Grievance Redressal Department on the basis of reply by the OP on the plea that "As per University Policy, an amount of Rs 20,000/- DT 17.12.2021 has been refunded to the student. Nothing is pending at University's end. IN view of the above you are requested to close the matter" and the Grievance Redressal Cell closed the complaint. of the complainants on 20-5-2022, Thereafter, the complainant No.1 again gave a complaint vide Grievance No.GRIEVANCE-STU-2022-94084-5 Open, which is pending and has not been decided and the amount of Rs.80,000/ has also not been refunded inspite of the clear instructions/ guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission in this regard and the amount of Rs.79,000/- is being withheld wrongly and illegally, which amounts to deficiency in rendering services and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence, the present complaint.

3.            We have heard the learned counsel for the complainants at the preliminary stage, and carefully gone through the documents annexed alongwith the complaint.
4.           The short question which falls for consideration in this case is, as to whether, the complainants fall within the definition of consumer or not. It may be stated here that it is settled law that education is not a commodity and the Educational Institutions do not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, and therefore, the complainants are not consumers and this complaint not being covered under the Consumer Protection Act, is not maintainable. Our this view of  supported by the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in  Rajendrakumar Gupta vs. Swarup Public School 2021 (1) CPJ (NC) 368 dated 2.2.2021, wherein, it is held by the Hon’ble National Commission as under:

"9. In Anupama College of Engineering v. Gulshan Kumar and Anr. the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:

"Leave granted. The only question raised in this case is whether a college is a service provider for the purposes of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed the decision of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur. (2010) 11 SCC 159. The aforesaid decision was followed by this Court in SLP (C) No. 22532/2012 titled as P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. The order reads as follows: "In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition. Thus, the special leave petition is dismissed". In view of the consistent opinion expressed by this Court, the orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 3571/2013 and Revision Petition No. 807/2017 are not in accordance with the decision of this Court and are therefore set aside. The civil appeals are allowed."

10. In the case titled Manu Solanki and Ors. v Vinayaka Mission University I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC), while addressing the issue whether an Educational Institution is a 'Service Provider' for the purpose of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Larger Bench of this Commission held: -

"33. Keeping in view Maharshi Dayanand University (supra) has addressed on merits and the question of law in detail and the same has been consistently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy & Anr. (supra), Prof. K.K. Ramachandran (supra) and the latest decision of Anupama College of Engineering (supra), we are of the considered view that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the last judgment that is Anupama College of Engineering (supra) has to be followed.

In LBS Group of education institute vs. Arjun Singh 2021 (1) CPJ (NC) 151 dated 31.8.2020 also it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission as under:_

 "7. We have heard learned Counsels for the Parties and perused the documents placed on record. In our considered view, a Preliminary Issue as to whether Educational Institutions providing Education and other Incidental Activities to the students come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not arises in this case and the said issue is squarely covered by the decision of a Larger Bench of three Members of this Commission in the case of Manu Solanki and Others Vs. Vinayak Mission University and other connected cases, 1(2020) CPJ, 2010, wherein the Larger Bench has held that Educational matters do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, the Complaint is not maintainable….”

                    Since, the OP in the present case is also an Educational Institute, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Superior Courts, in the cases referred to above, any complaint against it, with regard to fee etc. will not be covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed, in limine, with no order as to cost. However, complainants are at liberty to avail any other legal remedy available to them to get their grievance redressed. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the complainants, free of costs. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 30.08.2022.

 

 

                             (Ruby Sharma)                                  (Neena Sandhu)

                             Member                                             President