Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. District Forum, as above, this Appeal is moved by Netaji Subhas Open University.

Brief facts of the complaint case are that the Respondent No. 1 paid Rs. 1,965/- for studying Bachelor Degree Programme (BDP) at the Appellant study centre.  However, once he made due payment through online, he was informed that on account of his vocational background, he could not be admitted for the said programme.  As the Respondent No. 1 was not refunded the deposited sum by the authority concerned,  he took legal course against them. 

Notice was duly served upon both the Respondents.  As none of them turned up to participate in the present proceedings, the Appeal was heard ex parte.

It is contended by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant that although the complaint case was initiated against the Director of NSOU, the said post being non-existent, the matter could not be taken up before the Ld. District Forum at the opportune moment leading to passing of the ex parte order.  Ld. Advocate also questioned the admissibility of the complaint case contending inter alia that it being an educational related dispute, Consumer Fora was not the appropriate place for agitating the said dispute.

In this regard, I am to state that, though academic related disputes have been kept out of the purview of the Consumer Protection Act largely, whenever dispute crops up over alleged unfair trade practice on the part of educational institutions, the same definitely comes within the ambit of the Act. In this regard, I am fortified by the following decisions:

Whether education comes within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not, the issue has been put at rest by a seven Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors, reported in AIR 1978 SC 548 at page 583 (pr. 118) observing inter alia as under:

"In the case of the University or an educational institution, the nature of activity is, ex hypothesis, education which is a service to the community. Ergo, the University is an industry".

The Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Bhupesh Khurana And Ors. vs Vishwa Buddha Parishad And Ors., reported in 2000 CTJ 801 (CP) held that “Imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of 'service' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institutions. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. The Complainants had hired the services of the Respondent for consideration so they are consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act”. Incidentally, no other larger Bench of the Hon’ble Court subsequently altered this decision.

Recently, the Hon’ble National Commission in Krishan Mohan Goyal v. St. Mary’s Academy & Anr., reported in II (2017) CPJ 204 (NC), after deliberating upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (i) Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, reported in IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC); (ii) Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, reported in III (2010) CPJ 19 (SC); and (iii) P.T.Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., in SLP (Civil) No. 22532/2012, has been pleased to observe as under:

“None of the above referred three cases, in my view, would apply to a case where the school is found to be deficient even in providing the basic aid and assistance which any educational institution will provide to a student studying with it.  Deficiency in imparting education which is the core function of an educational institution, in my view is altogether different from rendering such basic help and assistance to the students.  A student may not be the consumer of the school as far as the core function of imparting education or taking examinations is concerned, but, the position would be altogether different where the deficiency on the part of the educational institution is found in an activity altogether different from imparting education, where a consideration is being charged for such an activity on the part of the educational institution.  When a school admits students for the purpose of imparting education to them, it also undertakes to render a reasonably possible help and assistance to them, whenever required by the students  who is in distress….. The educational institution cannot be permitted to wash-away its responsibility to provide such minimal aid and assistance on the pretext that it was not rendering any services to the students”. 

It, thus, appear to me that by adjudicating the present dispute, the Ld. District Forum committed no legal infirmity.

Having said that, I cannot endorse the order impugned in its entirety for the simple reason that the case was initiated against a non-entity.  Accordingly, the case is remitted back to the Ld. District Forum for fresh adjudication of the dispute after due rectification of the cause title of the case in accordance with law.

The Appeal is allowed in part as such.  Parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 23-09-2019 for fresh adjudication of the matter on merit.