KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 403/2016

JUDGMENT DATED: 03.10.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 226/2013 of DCDRC, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR            : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                                     : MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. Kottayam Institute of Technology and Science, Chengalam East Village, Pallikkathode, Kottayam represented by its Director.

2. The Principal, Kottayam Institute of Technology and Science, Chengalam East Village, Pallikkathode, Kottayam.

(By Advs. Fathahudeen M. & Narayan R.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Babu T. Varghese, Thalakkulam House, Cheeranchira P.O., Changanacherry, Kottayam-686 106.

                               (By Adv. Suja Madhav)

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  : PRESIDENT

The appellants are the opposite parties in C.C. No. 226/2013 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (“the District Commission” for short), who in this appeal challenges the order passed by the District Commission, directing the appellants to refund Rs. 30,000/- and also to pay costs of Rs. 1,500/- to the respondent.

2. The respondent’s son had taken admission for the B. Tech Automobile course for the academic year 2012-13 in the institution of the appellants after paying an amount of Rs. 30,000/-, which would include admission fee and tuition fee, on 10.07.2012.  However, the respondent’s son did not attend the class.  Therefore, the respondent demanded back the amount of Rs. 30,000/- paid by him.  However, the appellants did not refund the amount.

3.  The appellants filed their version admitting the receipt of Rs. 30,000/-.  However, the appellants would contend that since the son of the respondent had already taken admission in the institution and that itself under the Management quota, the appellants could not give the said seat to any other student.  In the said circumstances, the appellants were not liable to refund the amount.

4.  The evidence consists of the evidence of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A8 for the respondent.  The 2^nd appellant filed proof affidavit. Exts. B1 and B2 were marked for the appellants. 

5.  Heard. 

6.  The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the institution of the appellants, being an educational institution, the respondent would not come within the definition of ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act.  The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“the National Commission” for short) in Manu Solanki & ors. Vs. Vinayaka Mission University reported in 1 (2020) CPJ 210 (NC) to support his argument.  In paragraph 51 of the Manu Solanki & ors. (supra), the National Commission held as hereinbelow:-

“51. 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”. 

7.  The institution of the appellants is admittedly an institution imparting education.  Therefore, in view of the decision of the National Commission in Manu Solanki & ors. (supra), the institution of the appellants would not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.  Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent is not maintainable.  Therefore, the order passed by the District Commission is liable to be set aside.  Accordingly, the order passed by the District Commission stands set aside.  Since the complaint is found to be not maintainable, we are not entering into the merits of the case.  

In the result, this appeal stands allowed, the order passed by the District Commission in C.C. No. 226/2013 stands set aside and the complaint stands dismissed as not maintainable. 

The statutory deposit made by the appellants shall be refunded to the appellants, on proper acknowledgment. 

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT

                                                                  AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb