Haryana

Panchkula

CC/291/2019

SHAKTI SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHAVAN VIDYALAYA. - Opp.Party(s)

PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA & SANDEEP

13 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	291 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	29.05.2019
Date of Decision	:	13.09.2022

 

 

Shakti Singh aged about 61 years S/o Sh.Hukum Chand Verma, resident of H.No.299, Sector-25, Panchkula.

           ….Complainant

 

Versus

Bhavan Vidyalaya, Sector-15, Panchkula through its Principal.

                                                                ….Opposite Party

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person with Sh. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advocate   

                        Sh.Deepak Kumar Sharma, Authorised representative                       of the complainant.   

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that granddaughter of complainant, namely, Vaanya Verma got admission in LKG-Garnet vide admission no.8619 dated 17.01.2019 and deposited a sum of Rs.53,500/- with the Bhavan Vidyalaya Sector-15, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as OP). It is averred that the complainant sought the refund of said deposited amount consequent upon the admission of granddaughter in little flower school. A representation seeking refund of the amount of Rs.53,500/- was given  to OP on 05.03.2019 but the same was not refunded. A legal notice was also sent to OP on 09.03.2019 requesting therein to refund the deposited amount but no reply was received from the OP till date. Due to the act and conduct of the OP, the complainant has suffered physical harassment, mental agony and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable; the complainant does not fall under the category of consumer; the commission lacks jurisdiction and the complainant has not come with clean hands. It is stated that the complainant has not attached any proof of receipt of payment. It is alleged that the complainant had not deposited any amount as alleged. It is further alleged that the parents of child, namely, Manish and Neha Verma after going through the terms and conditions governing the admission had deposited the amount voluntarily and had signed the undertaking. On merits, pleas and assertions made in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

3.             To prove the case, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP tendered affidavit Annexure R-1 alongwith Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the authorized representative of the OP and gone through the arguments filed by learned counsels for the complainant, record carefully and minutely.

5.             The payment of sum of Rs.53,500/- made by the complainant to OP qua admission of his daughter in LKG class for the session 2019-20 vide account ledger inquiry(Annexure C-2) is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the complainant had made the request for the refund of said amount on 05.03.2019. The complainant had also sent legal notice(Annexure C-1) to OP seeking  refund of the said amount of Rs.53,500/-.

                During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint has prayed for the refund of deposited amount of Rs.53,500/- along with interest as well as compensation on account of harassment, litigations charges etc. The learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana, High Court on 30.08.2017 in RSA No.1580 of 2005 titled as Nachhattar Singh Vs. Satinder Kaur & Others in support of his contention that grandfather is entitled to file a complaint. The learned counsel further placed reliance in support of his contention that it is binding upon the educational institutions to refund the admission fee etc as deposited by the student. The details of cases as relied upon by the learned counsel is given as under:-  

1. Pie Solutions and Systems Ltd. Vs. Daya Shanker Mishra in Revision Petition no.3221 of 2005 decided on 25.01.2006(NCDRC).

 

2. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain 2006(2) CPJ 398(SDDRC, Delhi).

 

3. Thulaseedharan Nair.D  Vs. Mohandas College of Engineering  & Technology, in WP(C ) NO.27804 of 2015 decided on 19.03.2019(HC, Kerala).

 

 

6.             The OP has resisted the complaint by raising preliminary objections as well as on merits in its written statement. The OP has raised a serious dispute about the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the student vis-à-vis the educational institutions. In this regard, the learned counsel for the OP has contended that the controversy as involved in the present complaint has been adjudicated by the Hon’ble National Commission vide its order dated 20.01.2020  passed in consumer case no.261 of 2012 titled as Manu Solanki & Ors. Vs. Vinayaka Mission University and other connected consumer cases and Revision Petitions and thus, has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

7.             Admittedly, the controversy in the present case is related about the refund of the admission fee etc. as deposited by the complainant in the OP institute qua the admission of his granddaughter, so, it is necessary to look into the relationship of student vis-à-vis the educational institution, which provides education related services to its students.  

8.             In this regard, the Hon’ble National Commission in Manu Solanki case(supra) after having a detailed discussion of various case laws as propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in cases such as Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010(11) SCC 159, dated 19.07.2010, P.T.Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., 2012(3) CPCP 615(SC), Anupama College of Engineering Vs. Gulshan Kumar and Anr.  in civil appeal nos. 17802 and 17803 of 2017 dated 30.10.2017 and P.Sreenivasulu & Anr. Vs. P.J.Alexander & Anr.  in Civil Appeal Nos.7003-7004 of 2015 dated 09.09.2015 held that the educational institutions do not provide any service to the students. The relevant para of the said order/judgment for the sake of clarity and convenience is reproduced as under:-

51.     In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Institution 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.

9.             Pertinently, the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the Manu Solanki case(supra) is now pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Diary No.12901 of 2020, wherein  the Hon’ble Bench comprising of Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee,JJ .on 15.10.2020 passed the following order in the case of Manu Solanki (supra).

                “Since there are divergent views of this court bearing on the subject as to whether an educational institution or university would be subject to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the appeal would require admission”. In another SLP No.16591 of 2021 titled as Rajendra Kumar Gupta Vs. Dr.Virendra Swarup Public School & Anr. involving similar question of law and facts, the Hon’ble Apex Court passed the following orders:-

                “Having regard to the pendency of Civil Appeal no.3504 of 2020 (Manu Solanki and others Vs. Vinayaka Mission University), the issue as to        whether education is a service within the   Consumer Protection Act, is pending     before this Court”.

10.            Since the moot question qua the relationship between the student and the educational institution is yet to be decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Manu Solanki case(supra) as well as other connected case, it would be proper to adjourn the case sine die till the controversy is  final settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court  and it is ordered accordingly. However, it is made clear that either of the party to the complaint shall be at liberty to get the present complaint restored at its original number as and when the controversy involved in the present case is finally adjudicated by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

Announced on:13.09.2022

 

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal         

           Member                          Member                     President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                         Satpal,                              

                                        President