RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.179 of 2011

Delhi Public School, Aligarh through its Pro-

Vice Chairman, Shri Swapnil Jain, City Branch

Office, Agra Road, Aligarh.                          ….Appellant.

Versus

Dr. Shri Amrendra Kumar Singh,

S/o Shri B.P. Singh, R/o 3/288, Durga Badi,

Marris Road, Aligarh.                                 …Respondent.

Present:-                                                   

1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Raj Kamal Gupta, Member.

Shri Ashish Kumar for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

Date   7.3.2017

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma,  Member)

Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20.12.2010, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Aligarh in complaint case No.36 of 2010, the appellant Delhi Public School has preferred the instant appeal. 

Facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the respondent/complainant filed a complaint in the District Forum, Aligarh on the ground that his son Aditya Singh had applied for admission and deposited Rs.36,450.00 in the account of the appellant/OP for admission in their School but after noticing that some of the teachers of the OP were appointed on adhoc basis, his son did not attend the classes and asked for refund of the fees but the OP did not refund the amount and therefore, committed deficiency in service. In the Forum, the appellant/OP filed WS

(2)

submitting therein that the complainant had not sent his son to the School due to some personal reason and asked for refund of the fee and it was wrong on the part of the respondent/complainant that the staff was not adequate enough. The School was providing best of education to the students. The complaint is frivolous and therefore, liable to be dismissed with costs. After hearing the parties, the Forum below passed the impugned order as under on 20.12.2010.

"परिवादी का परिवाद विपक्षी के विरूद्व आंशिक रूप से स्‍वीकार किया जाता है तथा विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह परिवादी द्वारा जमा फीस की धनराशि अंकन 36450/- रू0 जमा करने की दिनांक से 8 प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्‍याज के साथ इस आदेश के 2 माह के अन्‍दर अदा करे, परिवादी विपक्षी से वाद व्‍यय हेतु 2000/- रूप भी प्राप्‍त करने का अधिकारी है।"

 Feeling aggrieved with this judgment and order, the appellant has filed this appeal.

The main grounds of the appeal are that the order was not passed by the Chairman and one other member, as is required under the Consumer Protection Act. There was no ground to refund of fee as the son of the complainant had not attended the School due to personal reason for which the School was not responsible. Besides, the complaint against the educational institution is not legally maintainable as per the pronouncement of the Hon'ble NCDRC and Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, the order passed by the Forum below is liable to be set aside and the appeal allowed.

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the entire record. None appeared for the respondent.

(3)

In this case, it is not disputed that the complainant had paid Rs.36,450.00 as fee for admission in the appellant School. The disputed point according to the appellant is that the complainant's son did not attend the School due to personal reasons but asked for refund which was not possible hence, the appellant/OP did not commit any deficiency in service whereas according to the respondent/complainant, the complainant's son had not studied in the school and therefore, the OP was bound to return the fee deposited and as they did not refund the fee hence they committed deficiency in service.

In this case, we have to ascertain as to whether this case being refund of fee whether it was maintainable in the Forum below or not. In this regard, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bihar School Examination Board vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC) and Hon'ble NCDRC in Addl. Joint Secretary/ Commissioner of Government Examinations vs. V. Srinivasulu and Anr., 2011(1) CPR 124 (NC) have held that the status of educational institutions are not service providers vis-à-vis students who can not be treated as consumers. Since the matter relates to refund of fee, therefore, as per the aforesaid pronouncement, educational institutions do not come within the purview of service providers especially in case of refund of admission fee. Therefore, the case was not maintainable on this score itself. However, coming to the merits of the case, we find that the complainant's son though deposited the admission fee but did not attend the school on the ground of staff not

(4)

been regular etc. This ground was firstly not proved at all and secondly it was a flimsy ground with the idea of justifying for getting the refund of admission fee even though, the complainant's son on his own volition did not attend the school and therefore, the appellant/OP was not liable for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in not refunding the fee. The ld. Forum has not considered the material facts and has passed the order on wrong appreciation of evidence and therefore, the impugned order is erroneous and is liable to the set aside. The appeal deserves to be allowed.   

ORDER

The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 20.12.2010, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Aligarh in complaint case No.36 of 2010 is set aside. Parties shall bear their own costs.

Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

                 (Vijai Varma)                   (Raj Kamal Gupta)

               Presiding Member                      Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.4