Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/761

NARAYAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

BMA WEALTH CREATORS - Opp.Party(s)

20 Dec 2016

ORDER

  CONSUMERDISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri

Date of institution:31.10.2012

Complaint Case. No.761/12                                          Date of order: 19.05.2017

IN  MATTER OF

ShriAmit Bajaj, presently at K-63, 1^st Floor, New Mahavir Nagar, New Delhi 110018, Permanent R/O 1096/13 Adarsh Colony, Rohtak, Haryana 124001    Complainant

VERSUS

Zee Institute of Creative Art (ZICA) Through Mr. Praveen Kumar, Director, Previously at: 11004-06, Vishwadeep Building, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058, Presently at: A-39 Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027

Opposite party

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

 Briefly case of the complainant is that he took admission with the opposite partyin B.Sc (Animation)and VFX three year degree courseon payment of requisite fee. The complainant attended the institute for one year. He was not satisfied by the coaching. The complainant left studies andsent a legal demand notice for refund of fee. The opposite party refused to refund the fee.Hence, the present complaint for directions to the opposite party to refund the fee alongwith interest and pay compensation for mental agony and harassment.

            After notice the opposite party appeared and filed reply admitting that the complainant took admission with the opposite party. They asserted that the complaint is false, frivolous and not maintainable.  More over there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. They further asserted that the complainant himself left studies without any reason.          

The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the Opposite Party. Wherein he reiterated his stand taken in complaint and controverted the stand taken by the opposite party.  

When the parties were asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit.   The complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit. Wherein he reiterated the facts of the complaint. The complainant in support of his case relied uponphoto copies of receipts of payment of fee and legal notice.  The oppositeparty filed affidavit of Shri Praveen Kumar Director dated 03.07.2014. Wherein he asserted the stand taken in the reply  and once again prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

We have heard learned counsel for the partiesand have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly. 

We are of the opinion that the main controversy/ issue is “whether ShriAmit Bajaj the complainant is a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and the opposite party is service provider”?

These issues have been dealt in detail by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case reported as MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY VS SURJEET KAUR 2010 (11)Supreme Court Cases 159 . Wherein it is held that education is not a commodity. The educational institutions are not service providers. Therefore, the students are not consumers. Similar view is taken by another bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in special leave petition no.22532/12 titled P.T.KOSHY& ANR VS ELLEN CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS decided on 9.8.12.  Similar view is taken by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition no. 1684/2009 titled as REGISTRAR ,GGS INDERAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY VS MISS TANVI decided on 29.1.2015 ,in Revision Petition No. 4335/14 titled as MayankTiwarivsFiitjeedecided on 8.12.14, in Revision Petition No. 3365/2006 titled FIITJEE VS DR.(MRS) MINATHI RATH, inRevision Petition No. 1805/2007 titled FITJEE VS B.B.POPLI, Revision Petition No. 3496/2006 P.T.Educationvs Dr MINATHI and in Revision Petition No. 2660/2007  all decided on 14.11.11 by common order.   Similar view is also taken by Hon’ble  State Commission of Chandigarh in Appeal no. 244/2014 titled M/s fiitjee ltd vsMayankTiwari decided on 23.9.14.

Similar are the facts of the present case .The complainant  took admission with the opposite party in B.Sc (Animation)and VFX three year degree courseon payment of requisite fee.  The opposite party is imparting education. Therefore as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble National Commission and  Hon’ble State Commission of Chandigarh consistently education is not a commodity and the opposite party is not service provider and the complainant is not a consumer under the  Consumer Protection Act.

Therefore, complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act-1986. Resultantly  the complaint is dismissed.

Order pronounced on :19.05.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.

• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                          (R.S.  BAGRI)

MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT