IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 10th day of January, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 109/2018 (filed on 06-06-2018)
Petitioners : Mr. Ebin Thomas,
S/o. Thomas C.C.
Chirakkathottathil House,
Vaduvanchal P.O.
Onneyar, Wayanad– 673518
(Adv. Nithin Sunny Alex)
Vs.
Opposite Party : Bharat College of Paramedical
& Applied Health Scinece,
Near St. Thomas HSS,
Main Road, Pala – 686575
Rep. by its Director
(Adv. Varughese C.C.)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
In short the facts are that against the advertisement of the opposite party , the complainant had applied for admission in 'Bachelors degree course on Radiology and Imaging Technology (BscRIT) -3 year course with the opposite party institution. The opposite party convinced the complainant that the collage is one among the top most paramedical institution in Kerala equipped with experienced staffs and practical facility which offers several courses including BSC RIT course which is recognized by apex professional university as every Bachlores Degree. The opposite party also handed over a prospects of collage which shows the courses offered. The fees structure offered for Bsc RIT course was 2 lakhs for three years including an admission fee of Rs. 35,000. He filled and submitted the application form on 28.2.2011 and paid the fee. The complainant on 3-7-20117 had joined the course by paying admission fee of Rs. 35,000/-. The regular classes were started in the opposite party collage and on 15-09-2017 the opposite party has issued a notice to the parent of the complainant demanding to pay the first semester fees of Rs. 25,000/- for BSc Radiology and Imaging Technology course before e30-10-2017. The complainant on 6-10-2017 had paid the first semester fees of Rs. 25,000/- for the course BSc RIT course. During the month of November 2017 the opposite party asked the students of Bsc RIT course including the complainant to fill up the application form tobe forwarded to the university . It is averred in the complaint that in the said form the course of application was shown as BSc MIT(B.VOC.MIT) instead of BSc RITfor which the complainant had joined. When the complainant questioned it was informed that the same was an error and will be corrected after fillingup the forms. Thereafter on12-3-2018 the opposite party has issued a notice to the parent of the complainant to pay the second semester fees of Rs. 25,000/- for BscMIT(B.VOC.MIT) course instead of BSc RIT before 30-3-2018. On receiving the said notice the complainant understood that the opposite party was cheating him and on guise of conducting BSc RIT curse they are conducting a B.VOC.MIT which is not all a Bachelors’ degree course and does not have any job prospects also. On enquiry it was informed by the opposite party that both the course have same validity. It is submitted in the complaint that the opposite party had informed the complainant that he need not have to pay any fees for the next two years and issued a letter for the same.
It is submitted in the complaint that the complainant opposed the same and demanded to return the documents submitted by him with amount paid and compensation. The opposite party agreed for the same and handed over the documents and had returned an amount of Rs. 30,000/- and informed that the balance would be paid later, but later opposite party informed that they would not pay any further amount. It is alleged in the complaint that the opposite party had made advertisementin their official website, news papers and prospectus that they are offering a Bsc. RIT course and took admission of the complainant as wellas his classmates for said course. But instead of the said course they are conducting a B.VOC.MIT course which is clearly a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It is submitted that thecomplainant had joined the opposite party institution and attended the class for around one year he had to spend Rs. One lakhs for his accommodation , food and travelling and more over by joining the opposite party institution and attending hr collage, he had lost his precious one year from his carrier. The complainant had to undergo much mental agony, inconvenience and los due to the act of the opposite party. Hence this complaint is filed praying for an order direct the oppositeparty to refund Rs. 30,000/- and to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- which is the amount spend by him for accommodation , food etc and Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation on various heads.
Upon notice opposite appeared before the forum and filed version contending as follows:
Complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party and complaint is not maintainable. The course are conducting by the Apex Professional University and the name of the courses was changed by the UGC. Hence the complaint is bad for non jointer of the necessary parties.
The opposite party is conducting an educational institution as per the norms and regulations of the University Grand Commission. Complainant was a student of the opposite party’s institute and subsequently stopped his course without any reason. All other fees is except the admission fees are going to the Apex Professional University. The opposite party demanded the fees and fine amount as per the direction of the university. The opposite party is an intermediary of the Apex university. The BSC RIT course is a three year degree course in paramedical subjects which is conducted by the Apex Professional University. Courses Syllabi fees structure, examinations,etc ..are under the control and supervision of te Apex Professional university. The opposite party has no control on said determinations. Recently university Grand Commissions directed to all the universities to change the name of the professional degree course that is Bsc RIT as B.Voc. The change in name is a technical arrangements made by the UGC. Opposite party has no control over their notifications. The complainant remitted admission fees of Rs. 35,000/- and joined the course. IT is admitted that there was a number of students are studying the said course and residing their convenience.
The opposite party conducted the said course in the previous year named BSC RIT subsequently university changed in the name of the said course as BSc MIT(B.VOC.MIT). The name of the course was changed by the UGC as per the notificationdated 3-8-2016. The admission process if the course commenced much before th notification. At the time of the advertisement the name of the course was BSC RIT but later as per the above said notification name of the course was changed as B.Voc. which is a thee year degree course in addition on completion of two years of the course they can apply a diploma certificate also. The applications form which are issued to the students were downloaded forms from the university website. It is submitted in the version that at the initial stage of the course the complainant filed the enrolment application which is downloaded from the web site and realized the name changes of the course. The complaint was well aware of the change of name of the course . The opposite party conducted a detailed class regarding the changes of the course name. It is submitted in the version that the degree course is graduation course of the university and not a diploma course. The subject syllabi of the courses are same. Changes affected in the name of the course alone.
It is averred in the version that on the request of the complainant the opposite party personally arranged the tuition fees and issued a letter to the complainant. The complainant informed the opposite party that he got an admission in Vellore Christain Medical Collage for another course and he requested for discontinuation of the course and paid fees. The opposite party refunded he admission fee of Rs. 30,000/-. The said refund was only a humanitarian consideration whichwas the only amount left with the opposite party. The complainant did not ask for any further amount from the opposite party .Though the opposite party admitted 33 students none other than complaint had alleged any complaint against the course. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
Evidence of this case consists of deposition of PW1 and DW1 and exhibits A1 to A7 from the side of the complainant and B1 from the side of the opposite party.
On an evaluation of complaint , version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party?
- If so what are the reliefs?
Point number 1
Learned counsel for the complainant argued that attracting by the advertisementpublished by the opposite party , the complainant took an admission for BSC RIT course in the opposite party institution by paying an amount of Rs. 35,000/- as admission fee. The course offered by the opposite party was BSC RIT and the complainant attended the class for an year. Pw1 who is the complainant deposed that he took the admission and attended that class on a belief that the opposite part had given admission to him for the course of BSC . RIT. He would further deposed that during the month of November 2017 the opposite party asked the students of Bsc RIT course including the complainant to fill up the application form to be forwarded to the university, in the said form the course of application was shown as BSc MIT(B.VOC.MIT) instead of BSc RIT for which the complainant had joined for the said course.According to the complainant thenonly he came to know that the opposite party on the guise of conducting the BSc RIT course the opposite party is conducting B.VOC.MIT which is not all a Bachelors’ degree course and does not have any job prospects also.
The complaint is resisted by the opposite party that the course are conducting by the Apex Professional University and the name of the courses was changed by the UGC and the opposite party have no role in the change of name course. Dw1 who is the director of the opposite party institution deposed before the forum that they had given admission to the complainant during the academic year 2016-2017 for the course of BSc RIT.
Before delving into the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to discuss whether the jurisdiction to adjudicate a case involving an issue with respect to an Educational Institution can be decided by a Consumer Commission within the four corners of the Consumer Protection Act.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has already settled the law with respect to whether education being imparted by the institutions is covered within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act or not in the case titled MaharshiDayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur reported at (2010) 11 SCC 159, and has held that the 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.
The aforesaid judgment was followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 22532/2012 titled P.T. KOSHY & ANR. vs. ELLEN CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS. dated 09.08.2012, wherein it was observed:
"In view of the judgment of this Court in MaharshiDayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a conmmodity. 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. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition. Thus, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed. "
Further, in Civil Appeal No. 17802 of 2017 titled as Anupama College of Engineering v. Gulshan Kumar &Ors. decided on 02.11.2017, after taking into consideration the aforesaid two dictas, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"Learned counsel for the appellant has placed the decision of this Court in MaharshiDayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur [(2010) 11 SCC 159]. The aforesaid decision was followed by this Court in SLP (C) No. 22532/2012 titled as P.T. Koshy &Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. The order reads as follows:
"In view of the judgment of this Court in MaharshiDayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur [(2010) 11 SCC 159] wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. 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.
In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition. Thus, the special leave petition is dismissed.
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 civil appeals are allowed. "
Moreover, the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Manu Solanki and Ors. vs. Vinayaka Mission University and Ors. reported at I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC), has held as under:
" 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. "
Hence, from the aforesaid pronouncements, it is clear that except for the Coaching Institution, the other institutions, imparting education and connected activities, are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commissions. Consequently, we are of the view that this commission have no of jurisdiction to adjudicate the same as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before parting with the judgment, it is necessary to clarify that we have not gone into the merits of the case since the same has to be decided before a court having the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate. The complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 10th day of January, 2022
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Witness from the side of complainant
Pw1 – Ebin Thomas
Witness from the side of opposite party
Dw1 –Rajmohan Nair
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Prospectus 2016-2017 issued by the opposite party
A2 – Receipt of admission fee for Rs.35,000/- issued by the opposite party
A3 – Receipt of semester fee dtd.15-09-17for Rs.25,000/- issued by the opposite party
A4 - – Receipt of semester fee dtd.06-10-17for Rs.25,000/- issued by the opposite party
A5 – Notice dtd.12-03-18 issued by the opposite party
A6 - Letter dtd.12-04-18 issued by the opposite party
A7 series - Receipts issued by Plathottam Plaza, Kollappaly (11 nos.)
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 - Copy of UGC notification No.D.O.No.F.2-7/2014 (CC/INVEQF)Misc.
dtd.03-08-16
By Order
Senior Superintendent
