Delhi

West Delhi

CC/13/732

PARVINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

BABA SAHEB AMBEDKAR INS. - Opp.Party(s)

15 Sep 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                                 Date of institution                 6/12/13

 

Case. No.732/13                                                                                                       Date of Order                            15/9/16

ParvinderSingh,

B-308, Hari Nagar, Clock Tower,

New Delhi-64.                                                                                                                                                                   COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

 

Baba Sahib Ambedkar Institute

Of Technology & Management,

Plot No.13/B, Bodhella,

Vikas Puri,

New Delhi-18.                                                                                                                                                                   OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

 

R.S. BAGRI (PRESIDENT

                Briefly the case of the complainant is that he took admission with the Opposite Party an  education institution for pursuing his studies in automobile engineering on payment of requisite fee.   The Opposite Party at the time of admission told the complainant that the Opposite Party is affiliated with Delhi Board.   But later on the complainant came to know that Opposite Party is not registered and is a fake board.   The complainant is studying in Opposite Party’s institution for the last more than one year.   Opposite Party now told the complainant that he could continue his studies with Jodhpur National University.  He does not want to continue his studies with Jodhpur National University.   Hence, the present complaint for direction to Opposite Party to refund the fee received by the Opposite Party and pay compensation on account of loss of studies  and deficiency in service.  

 

                After notice Opposite Party appeared and filed reply admitting that the complainant took admission with the Opposite Party.    But asserted that they did not mislead the complainant and never told him that the Opposite Party is affiliated with the Delhi Board.   The Opposite Party is affiliated with IAE, Delhi. The Opposite Party collected fee and deposited with IAE, Delhi.  But later on Opposite Party came to know  that IAE is not a recognized university.   Therefore, to secure future of their students Opposite Party got affiliated with Jodhpur National University, Rajasthan.   But the complainant does not want to continue his studies with the Opposite Party.  There is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on part of the Opposite Party. 

-2-

                The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of Opposite Party wherein he once again reiterated his stand taken in complaint and controverted the stand taken by the Opposite Party.  

 

 

                The parties were asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit.   The complainant in support of his case filed affidavit dated 23.5.14, wherein he once again prayed for directions to opposite parties to refund the fee.  The complainant in support of his case relied upon copy of  payment receipts dated   28.8.12,11.10.12,7.12.12, 6.5.13, and 6.5.13 , copy of I-Card, copy of letter  for refund of fee and copy of refusal letter by Opposite Party.    The Opposite party was   asked  to  file  evidence .  But conditional cost was not paid  by the Opposite Party  therefore, the right of Opposite Party was stuck off vide order dated 4.11.15.  

     We have heard the complainant in person at length and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.  We are of the opinion that the main controversy/ issue is “whether Parvinder Singh , complainant, is consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and the opposite parties are service providers”?

      These issues have been dealt in detail by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case reported as MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY VS SURJEET KAUR 2010 (11)Supreme Court Cases 159 .  Wherein it is held that education is not a commodity. The educational institutionals are not service providers. Therefore, the students are not consumers. Similar view is taken by another bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in special leave petition no22532/12 titled P.T.KOSHY& ANR VS ELLEN CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS decided on 9.8.12.  Similar view is taken by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition no 1684/2009 titled as REGISTRAR ,GGS INDERAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY VS MISS TANVI decided on 29.1.2015 ,in Revision Petition No 4335/14 titled as Mayank Tiwari vs  Fiitjee decided on 8.12.14, in Revision Petition No 3365/2006 titled FIITJEE VS DR.(MRS) MINATHI RATH, in Revision Petition No 1805/2007 titled FITJEE VS B.B.POPLI, Revision Petition No 3496/2006 P.T.Education vs Dr MINATHI and in Revision Petition No 2660/2007  all decided on 14.11.11 by common order.   Similar view is also taken by Hon’ble  State Commission of Chandigarh in Appeal no 244/2014 titled M/s fiitjee ltd vs Mayank Tiwari decided on 23.9.14.

       Similar are the facts of the present case .The complainant  took admission with opposite party(education Institution)) for pursuing Automobile Engineering on payment of the requisite fee.  The opposite party is imparting education. Therefore as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court,  Hon’ble National Commission and  Hon’ble State Commission of Chandigarh time and again education is not a commodity and the opposite parties are not service providers and the  complainant is not a consumer under the  Consumer Protection Act.

-3-

      Therefore, complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act-1986.  . Resultantly  the complaint is dismissed.

 

Order pronounced on :15.09.2016

 

 

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                            (URMILA GUPTA)                            (R.S.  BAGRI)

  MEMBER                                                             MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT