KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVISION PETITION:09/2010 JUDGMENT DATED:11..05..2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Amritha Vidyalayam, Ayyanthole, Thrissur. : REVISION PETITIONER R/by its Principal. (By Adv:Sri.Narayan.R) Vs. Amrita Vidyalayam, Parents & Students Welfare Association, Skyline Buildings, West Fort, Poothole, : COUNTER PETITIONER R/by its President, T.G.Krishnan. (By Adv:Sri.Kamaleswaran S. Manikantan Nair) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The revision petitioner is the opposite party/educational institution in CC:436/09 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. 2. Revision petition is filed over the order of the Forum rejecting the contention of the revision petitioner that the Forum is not having the jurisdiction to examine the fees structure. 3. The dispute is with respect to the alleged enhancement of fee of the students from the particular academic year. The counsel for the revision petitioner has relied on the decisions reported in Radha Nand Singh (DR) Vs. Bihar State Housing Board III (2006) CPJ 206 (NC); Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs. Sheshrao 1 (1998) CPJ 94 (NC) and The Manager, Milk Chilling Centre Vs. Mahaboobnagar Citizen Council II-1991-CPR 177 wherein the National Commission has held that pricing is not a matter liable to be adjudged by the authorities under the Consumer Protection Act. 4. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent/ complainant has contended that education is a service covered under Sec.2(1)d(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act and that there are various decisions that the student can resort to the authorities under the Consumer Protection Act. 5. We find that in the instant case the dispute is with respect to the enhancement of fee were here amounting to Rs.600/-; 800/-; 450/-; 1050/-; 550/- for various classes from the Primary, Upper Primary and each of the High School classes. The above enhancement is for one year. It is the case of the revision petitioners that they will have to pay enhanced wages to the teachers and provide additional facilities. We find that these are of matters that come within the definition of pricing, as thread bare examination of the pricing cannot be done by the consumer Forums and Commissions. The decision cited by the National Commission has specifically laid down the law in this regard. Hence we find that the order of the Forum in this regard cannot be sustained. The Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The revision petition is allowed. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT VL. | 
