Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/386/2020

National Law University - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arpit Saini - Opp.Party(s)

Indrajeet Singh

07 Apr 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ,JAIPUR

 

FIRST APPEAL NO:386/2020

 

National Law Institute University, Karvadem Road, Bhopal (MP) through its Registrar

Vs.

Arpit Saini s/o Rajesh Saini r/o 17, Sitaram Vihar, Near Patrkar Colony, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 7.4.2021

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Banwari Lal Sharma-President

Hon'ble Mr.Shailendra Bhatt -Member

 

Mr.Rajesh Mutha counsel for the appellant

Mr. Suresh Saini counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA, PRESIDENT ):

 

 

2

 

The present appeal is preferred by the appellant non-petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 4.2.2019 passed by the learned DCF Jaipur 4^th Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 54/2018 (Arpit Saini Vs. National Law Institute University) whereby the learned DCF allowed the complaint of the complainant in the following terms:

 

“ Qyr% ifjoknh dk ifjokn ,drjQk esa Lohdkj fd;k tkdj vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd foi{kh laLFkku ifjoknh dks 1]17] 250@& :i;s ¼v{kjs :i;s ,d yk[k l=g gtkj nks lkS ipkl ek=½ ifjokn izLrqr djus dh fnukad 15-12-2017 ls vnk;xh rd 9 izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls C;kt lfgr vkt ls nks ekg esa vnk djsA

blds vykok foi{kh laLFkku ekufld larki vkfn dh {kfriwfrZ isVs 10]000@& :i;s ¼v{kjs :i;s nl gtkj ek=½ ,oa ifjokn O;; isVs 5]000@& :i;s ¼v{kjs :i;s ikap gtkj ek=½ vkt ls nks ekg esa ifjoknh dks vnk djsaA ”

 

Brief facts of the case are that respondent complainant preferred a complaint before the learned DCF stating therein that on 5.6.2017 vide application no. 2006433 he deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- and applied for online counselling, on

3

 

which he was allotted a seat in the institute of non-petitioner. Thereafter vide receipt no. 25156 dated 29.6.2017 he deposited Rs. 1,80,250/- through Demand Draft. Subsequently petitioner was admitted against the vacant seat of another National Law University. Therefore, he made application for refund of aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,30,250/-, out of which only Rs.63,000/- were returned to the complainant and the charges regarding counselling was adjusted for the other National Law University. Therefore, the complainant claimed Rs.1,17,250/- which were not returned by the non-petitioner even after repeated requests. It was prayed before the learned DCF that non-petitioner may be directed to remit Rs. 1,17,250/-, for mental agony and compensation Rs. 1 lakh and for litigation expenses Rs. 11,000/- with interest.

 

After hearing the parties the learned DCF allowed the complaint in the aforesaid terms. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 4.2.2019 the appellant non-petitioner preferred this appeal before this Commission.

 

Appeal was admitted for hearing and notice was issued

 

4

 

to the respondent complainant. Record of the learned DCF was also called for.

 

Mr.Rajesh Mutha learned counsel for the appellant submits that education institutions does not come in the purview of District or State Consumer Commission. He submits that there is no relation regarding service provider and consumer between the education institution and student. Without considering this fact the learned DCF allowed the complaint. Therefore, this appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment may be quashed and set aside.

 

Learned counsel for the appellant relied on II (2019) CPJ 40 (NC) MJP Rohailkhand University & ors. Vs. Ravindra Kumar Jaiswal, Civil Appeal No. 17802/2017 (Anupama College of Engineering Vs. Gulshan Kumar & ors.) decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 30.10.2017 and Consumer Case No. 261/2012 (Manu Solanki & ors. Vs. Vinayaka Mission University ) decided by the Hon'ble NCDRC on 20.1.2020.

 

Mr.Suresh Saini learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent complainant does not dispute the aforesaid legal

5

 

position. He fairly submits that Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute of student and education institution. He submits that liberty may be given to the respondent complainant for availing other legal remedy as per law.

 

We have considered the submissions made at Bar.

 

In the matter of Anupma College of Engineering Vs. Gulshan Kumar & ors. (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relying on the judgment passed in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur (2010 )II SCC 159) observed that 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court relied the earlier decision passed in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur wherein it was observed as under:

 

“In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur [(2010) 11 SCC 159] wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier

6

 

 

judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, 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 the matter of M.J.P. Rohailkhand University & ors. Vs. Ravindra Kumar Jaiswal (supra) the Hon'ble NCDRC held that-

“ Having regard to the aforentoed principle, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view, that Education is not a Commodity and cannot be defined as 'Service', as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) or (o) of the Act and hence this Revision Petition is allowed and the order of both the fora below is set aside and the Complaint is dismissed accordingly.”

 

In the matter of Manu Solanki & ors. Vs. Vinayaka Mission University (supra) the Hon'ble NCDRC again relying on Maharshi Dayanand University case observed that-

 

“Keeping in view Maharshi Dayanand University

 

 

 

 

7

 

 

 

(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.

However, at this juncture, it is significant to note here that the ratio in Maharshi Dayanand University(supra),P.T.Koshy & anr.(supra), Prof.K.K. Ramachandran (supra) and Anupama College of Engineering (supra), does not address to the aspect of what comprises ' Core Education' and whether all activities related to Education/Educational institutions would be excluded from the purview of the Act.”

 

In view of the above since education is not a commodity and 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. Without considering this fact the learned

 

 

8

 

DCF allowed the complaint which is not sustainable and this appeal deserves to be allowed.

 

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 4.2.2019 passed by the learned DCF is quashed and set aside and complaint of respondent complainant is dismissed. However, respondent complainant will have liberty to avail other alternate legal remedy as per law.

 

(Shailendra Bhatt) (Banwari Lal Sharma)

Member President

 

nm