Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/680/2015

Karam Veer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bansal Education Group - Opp.Party(s)

Virender Nagla

09 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/680/2015
Date of Institution	:	07/10/2015
Date of Decision	:	09/10/2015

 

Karam Veer Singh, minor son of Shri Kuldeep Singh, resident of Village and Post Office Nagla Jattan, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala through his father cum natural guardian Shri Kuldeep Singh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

Bansal Education Group, SCO No.54-55, 2nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its authorized signatory Shri Harjinder Singh.

……Opposite Party

 

QUORUM:	P.L.AHUJA	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                               

                                                               

For the Complainant

:

None.

                       

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh.Karam Veer Singh (minor), complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, through his father against Bansal Education Group, Opposite Party (hereinafter called the OP), alleging that he was interested to take coaching of IIT and he was in search to have better education from some institute. According to the complainant, the OP contacted and induced him to visit at his institution by the name of Bansal Education Group for IIT coaching. Accordingly, the complainant alongwith his father went to the OP on 31.03.2015 and deposited a sum of Rs.45,000/- for IIT course in cash against receipt No.1012, dated 31.03.2015 issued by the OP. The complainant was advised by OP to start his classes from 07.04.2015 in the institution of the OP. Accordingly, the complainant went to the OP to start his classes for IIT coaching w.e.f. 07.04.2015, but the OP disclosed the complainant that it had filled up all the vacant seats and the OP had no seat for the complainant and if complainant wanted to adjust with the institution of the OP, he would have to afford evening classes from 8.00 PM. It has been averred that complainant through his father requested the OP that he could not afford the evening time and to accommodate the complainant in the morning classes. The OP refused to accommodate the complainant at which the complainant requested the OP to refund his advance amount of Rs.45,000/-, but OP failed to do so despite numerous follow-ups and issuance of legal notice dated 08.07.2015.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint
2.         Today the case was fixed for presence of the complainant for admission of the complaint, but none has turned up for the complainant since morning to address arguments on the question of admissibility of the complaint. Waited till 3.15 PM. The learned counsel for complainant has not turned up despite noting down the next date under his signatures on 07.10.2015. The complaint is liable to be dismissed on this very ground. Otherwise also, this complaint relates to the refund of the coaching fee. The issue raised by the complainant relates to education, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora. In this context, attention can be had to Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010(11) SCC 159, and First Appeal No.1444 of 2013 titled as Atul Suyal Vs. Ryat-Bahra Group of Institutes decided on 22.01.2014 by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, wherein it was held that the Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in the matters of admission fee etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service and such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
3.         It is also important to note that the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.4335 of 2014 titled as Mayank Tiwari Vs. M/s FIIT JEE Limited, decided on 08.12.2014, while placing reliance on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., in Civil Appeal No.22532 of 2012, decided on 09.08.2012 and Revision Petition No.270 of 2006 titled as Brilliant Classes Vs. Shri Ashbel Sam, decided on 29.1.2010, has held that educational institutions are not service providers because education is not a commodity and educational institutions are not providing any kind of service.  We are of the opinion that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble National Commission, complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘Consumer’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
4.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and the same is dismissed. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to agitate the issue mentioned above before a Court of competent jurisdiction/appropriate Forum.       
5.         The certified copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of charge. The file be consigned.

		Sd/-	Sd/-
09/10/2015		[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
as		Member	President