KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 84/2018
JUDGMENT DATED: 05.11.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 172/2015 of DCDRC, Idukki)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- The Managing Director, Al-Azhar Dental College, Perumpillichira P.O., Thodupuzha, Idukki.
- The Principal, Al-Azhar Dental College, Perumpillichira P.O., Thodupuzha, Idukki.
(By Adv. C.S. Rajmohan)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Biji Thomas, Elappunkanal House, Muvattupuzha P.O., Ernakulam.
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant in C.C. No. 172/2015 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Idukki (for short “the District Commission”).
2. The daughter of the respondent joined for BDS course in the institution of the appellants after paying Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only) towards advance tuition fee. The total fee payable was Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh only). There was a dispute in connection with the education of the daughter of the respondent in the institution of the appellants. Therefore, the respondent filed the above complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants.
3. The respondent was examined as PW1 and Exhibits P1 and P2 were marked for the respondent. DW1 was examined and Exhibits R1 to R8 were marked for the appellants. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the 1st appellant to refund an amount of Rs. 8,35,060/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Thirty Five Thousand and Sixty only) and pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs to the respondent.
4. Heard. Perused the records.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that since the institution of the appellants is an educational institution recognized by the University, the respondent would not come within the ambit of ‘consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and consequently, the order passed by the District Commission cannot be sustained. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“the National Commission” for short) in Manu Solanki and others Vs. Vinayaka Mission University reported in 1 (2020) CPJ 210 (NC) to support his argument. In paragraph 51 of the Manu Solanki and others (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”.
6. The institution of the appellants is admittedly an institution imparting education. Therefore, in view of the decision of the National Commission in Manu Solanki and others (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 dated 31.10.2017 passed by the District Commission in C.C. No. 172/2015 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
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
