Hon’ble Mr. Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member

          Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with Judgement dt. 25.01.2019 dismissing the CC/32 of 2018 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Kolkata (North) dismissing on contest against Opposite Party Nos.1, 2 & 5 and ex-parte against the other Opposite Parties, the Appellant/Complainant prefers this appeal.

           The fact of the Complaint Case is, in short, like that the Complainant contacted with the OP No.1 and he was informed by the OP concerned that minimum period of BCA (Graduation Career) course is three years and maximum five years. The total fees was Rs.1,57,000/- are to be paid by instalment during the course. The OPs/Respondents provided distance BCA mark-sheet and certificate from OP No.4, study material from APTECH Computer Education. The Complainant, at the time of application, expressed his financial difficulties and OP No.1 before taking admission in BCA assured for education loan. They assured that he would be provided with the education loan after taking admission in BCA Course. The Complainant on the assurance of OP No.1 took admission on 07.08.2012 and the admission fee was Rs.13,137/-. The Complainant requested the OP No. 1 for educational loan and the OPs informed that they requested the SBI to provide with the loan. But SBI did not cooperate. Then the complainant thereafter informed the OP No.1 that he would not be able to pay the entire course fees within three years because of his financial problems. The OP No.1 assured the Complainant about job placement during BCA course and gave an assurance to the complainant that a period of five years would be provided to pay BCA Course fees in instalments. The Complainant appeared for the first semester in the month of January 2013 and the result was declared in the month of June 2013 and the OP No. 1 told the Complainant that the mark sheet would not be released due to non payment of instalments. The complainant wanted to know about the third semester examination. But the OP No. 1 did not allow him to appear for the 2^nd and 3^rd semester examination. Thereafter the Complainant after persuading the OPs appeared in fourth and 5^th semester examination in the month of July 2014 and January 2015, but the OP did not provide with any mark-sheet as the Complainant failed to pay the instalment. The complainant wanted to appear in the 6^th semester examination at APTECH Ultadanga. But no examination was held there and the Complainant was informed that the examination would be taken at APTECH, Lake Town, Kalindi. He went there and appeared in the examination. Thereafter the Complainant wanted to contact OP No.1 and he was informed that the said APTECH Office of OP No.1 has been shifted to Kalindi. The complainant paid Rs.15,000/- in cash for BCA course in instalment. Subsequently, the complainant paid the instalment amount of Rs.5,000/- to OP No. 5. After some time the complainant met OP No.5 and he was informed that OP No.4 did not declare the examination date and he was informed that a better relationship cropped up between the OP No.3 and OP No.4 and the Complainant was informed to wait till next examination date being fixed in July 2016. Thereafter the Complainant sent email to OP No.2 to ascertain the problem regarding the said course. But OP No. 2 did not give any reply. Thereafter the complainant went to OPs for several times. But no fruitful result was achieved. So, the complainant filed the instant complainant case praying the direction upon the OP Nos.1 to 5 to refund Rs.1,02,031/-, Rs.18,50,000/- as compensation for his sufferings and Rs.30,000/- for litigation cost.

          The OP Nos. 1, 2 & 5 contested the case by filing Written Version denying the material allegations of the complainant. It is stated that the Complainant was totally absent during the course of study and he did not clear course fees of 2^nd and 3^rd semester examinations for which the Complainant was shown absent in the said examination. The Complainant paid Rs.2300/- on 02.03.2012 and Rs.12,000/- after a long period of nine months. As the complainant paid Rs.14,300/-, so he was allowed to appear in the 4^th and 5^th semester examination. The Complainant attended the classes of 6^th semester at Ultadanga and as the centre was about to close, the Complainant was asked to go to Kalindi Centre for examination purpose, though he was not a student of Kalindi Centre. He was asked to pay the dues, but, he did not pay course fees. The complainant suppressed the material fact and made a false statement to the effect that he handed over a manually generated money receipt to Shri Rajib Das and he received a computer generated money receipt. The complainant made a false complaint with Maniktala PS against several persons.  But the Police did not take any steps on the ground that the complainant had his own fault and he misbehaved with the OPs by using slang languages against the officials of the OPs in presence of Police personnel. Because of such ill behaviour, the OP No.1 lodged a complaint with Maniktala PS against the Complainant.  The Complainant failed to clear dues. So, according the OPs the demand for compensation and litigation cost are false and the OPs prayed for dismissal of the case.

          For proper adjudication of the disputes between the parties the Ld. Forum below framed following points:-

1. Whether the complainant complied with the direction of OPs by payment of course fees?
2. Whether the complainant appeared in the exam?
3. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
4. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

          The Ld. Forum below decided the points against the Complainant.

          The Forum below held undoubtedly the Complainant paid a portion of the course fees but did not clear the entire dues.

          Now the question is to be decided whether the impugned judgement suffers from any illegalities?

       The Ld. Advocate for the Respondent referred to a decision of Supreme Court reported in 2020 SCC Online NCDRC 7 dated 04.07.2022. In the Paragraph 51 of the Judgement it was held - “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, sport, etc. except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986”.

          In the case of FITJEE Ltd. vs. Minati Rath, 1(2012) CP 194 NC it has been held that the complainants were consumers who sought to avail of services for consideration and that FITJEE is the provider of services and that these are consumer disputes. The issue that has been raised is that if the coaching centres were treated at par as observed on this order to be providing coaching and training to students of an educational nature, then they too fall within the definition of education and therefore services rendered by coaching centres cannot be construed to be service as defied u/s 2 (1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The aforesaid decisions were referred by the Ld. Advocate for the Respondents.

           The Appellant referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal No. 1135 of 2001 dt. 13.02.2019 in the Case of Buddhist Dental College & Hospital vs. Bhupesh Khurana & others, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed, “Imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of ‘service’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institutions. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. The Complainants had hired the services of the respondent for consideration so they are consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.”

        In view of the factual scenario of the case and the position of law cited above, we are of the view that the Complainant is a consumer.

           From the factual aspects of the case, it is very much clear the complainant joined in a vocational course and appeared in different semester examinations, also obtained mark sheets of such examinations, but he was not provided with vocational certificate as he did not pay the entire course fee.

             It is an admitted position that the Complainant failed to pay the total course fees, so he failed to complete the course.

            So, the Complainant being a consumer availed of some services on payment of course fees, in part. But in the instant complaint the Appellant/Consumer prayed for refund of total Rs.1,02,031/- from OP Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5. But as the Complainant availed of service, so there is no question for allowing his prayer for refund of Rs.1,02,031/-.

             So, for the aforementioned reasons we are of the view, the instant Appeal should not be allowed and the impugned order does not require any interference from our end, because it does not suffer from any illegality.

            Accordingly, the Appeal No. A/154/2019 is dismissed on contest. There shall be no order as to the costs. The impugned Order is upheld. Order of stay, if there is any, in connection with this Appeal stands vacated.

             Let a copy of this Order be sent to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata-I(North).

             The Joint Registrar of this Commission is directed to do the needful in this regard.