Ms. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER    

13.06.2024

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The brief facts of the complaint are that in the month of July, 2010 complainant’s son approached OP for getting admission in BBA course and got himself registered on 24.07.2010 under registration no. BBA/10/131 and deposited a sum of Rs. 600/- for counseling charges. The son of the complainant further paid Rs. 30,000/- to the OP against the receipt dated 24.07.2010.
2. It is alleged by the complainant that at the time of registration the officials of the OP assured complainant’s son that they will provide various types of facilities such as pick and drop from the residents, mineral water, qualified staff and AC rooms. They further assured that they will provide study material as well as electricity back up to complainant’s son. Complainant deposited in total Rs. 35,000/-with OP however, OP issued receipt for Rs. 30,000/- only and further assured that Rs. 5000/- was refundable one as such no receipt is required.
3. It is alleged by the complainant that when his son started attaining  the college, he found that all the assurance given by OP in respect to the  availability of pick and drop from the residents, mineral water, qualified staff and AC rooms was fake one and  no such facility were provided by the OP Institute. It is further alleged by the complainant that all the students left the college due to scarcity of facilities and qualified staff. The complainant wrote various complaints to the OP in respect to the irregularities as well as the non providing of the facilities assured, but all in vain. Finally on 15.09.2010, complainant wrote a letter to OP thereby requesting it to refund the fees deposited but OP neither replied the same nor had complied. On 23.11.2010 complainant again wrote a letter to OP for refund of fee through registered post but of no use. Being aggrieved by the non refund of the fees by OP , Complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance.
4. Notice of the complaint was sent to OP. OP filed its written statement wherein it denied any deficiency on its part. It is further stated that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not the consumer of OP. It is further stated that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as the education board and universities are not the service providers and as such the complaints are not maintainable against them. It is further stated that the requisite facilities were provided to the complainant and it is the complainant who had not continued the course and drop after joining, hence, OP is not liable for refund of the fees as alleged in the complaint. It is further stated that the present complaint be dismissed being not maintainable before this Commission.
5. No rejoinder to the WS of OP filed. Complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has corroborated contents of his complaint. Despite opportunity OP failed to file its evidence as such right to file evidence of OP  stands closed vide order dated 18.04.2023.
6. Complainant filed written arguments. We have heard Sh. Varun Dhingra counsel for complainant. Despite ample opportunities no one came forward to address the arguments on behalf of OP and  have perused the record.
7. Complainant has placed on record copy of registration and its payment receipt dated 24.07.2010, copy of fee receipt dated 24.07.2010, copy of letter dated 15.09.2010 as well as 23.11.2010 along with copy of Registered AD cards in support of his contention.
8. OP has strongly challenged the maintainability of the present complaint on the ground that the complainant is not the consumer of OP, hence, needs to be decided first.
9. Before adverting to the disposal of the present complaint case, let us see the relevant provision under C.P Act, 1986 as to who is the consumer:

As per Section 2 (1) (d) of C.P Act, 1986 consumer means any person who:

1. buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised , or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose” or

2. [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of first mentioned persons [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]

10. Admittedly, in the present complaint case the services of OP was hired by the son of the complainant namely Prateek Singhal. The invoice regarding the deposit of the registration fees as well as the course fee of Rs.30,600/-  was issued in the name of Prateek Singhal. The present complaint case was filed by one Sh. Mahavir Prasad Singhal, who has no Locus Standi to file the present complaint.
11. Admittedly, in the present complaint case the complainant has prayed for the refund of the fees deposited for admission in BBA course of OP. In the present complaint case complainant had not hired the services of OP As  education is not a commodity and neither education institutions providing any kind of service, hence, the present dispute is not a consumer dispute (Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust, SLP(Civil) No. 22532/2012, vide judgment dated 09.08.2012, “ Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, P.T. Koshy Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust, Manu Solanki Vs. Vinayaka Mission University and Shivam Malhotra Vs. M.D. Oxl School of Multi-media ).
12. In view of the above discussion we are of the considered opinion that firstly the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as he himself has not availed the services of OP and secondly, the present dispute is not a consumer dispute as such present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. We therefore, find no merits in the present complaint, same is hereby dismissed.
13. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry. Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced  in open Forum on 13.06.2024.

Sanjay Kumar            Nipur Chandna                      Rajesh

               President                            Member                         Member