Delhi

West Delhi

CC/13/512

YOGESH NANDAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

Brilliant Tutorials Pvt ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

22 Dec 2016

ORDER

                                                         CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                             Date of institution  14.8.13           

Case. No.512/13                                                                                                                Date of order:22.12.16                      

IN  MATTER OF

Mr. Yogesh Nandal

S/o Late Shri Satish Nandal

R/o RZ-681/1A, Street No.1,

Indra Park, Palam Colony,

New Dlhi-110045                                                                                                              COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

Brilliant Tutorials Pvt ltd.

Head Office

12, Masilamani Street,

Thiragaraya Nagar,

Chennai-600017

Branch office: A-1/295, Pankha Road,

Janak Puri, Delhi-11058                                                                                                               OPPOSITE PARTY

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI PRESIDENT

 

Briefly the case of the complainant is that he took admission with the Opposite Party an  education institution for board cum one year class room programme (BOYCP) on payment of requisite fee.   The session commenced from 1.5.11 and was to be completed till the middle of march, 2012.   The complainant started attending  classes. The Opposite Party completed only 10% of the course.  But in the end of September, 2011 the Opposite Party closed the study center.   The complainant  approached and requested the Opposite Party to refund his fee.  But Opposite Party refused to refund the fee.   Hence, the present complaint for directions  to  the Opposite Party to refund the fee received by the Opposite Party and pay Rs2,00,000/- as compensation on account of loss of studies  and  deficiency in service.  

 

2/-

            After notice Opposite Party appeared and filed reply admitting that the complainant took admission with the Opposite Party. The opposite party asserted that the complaint is not maintainable as complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as provided  under the Consumer Protection Act.  More over there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their part. They further asserted that as per the terms of contract the Opposite Party is not liable to refund fee under any circumstance and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

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

 

            The parties were asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit.   The complainant in support of his case filed affidavit dated 14.8.14, wherein he once again prayed for directions to Opposite Party to refund the fee.  The complainant in support of his case relied upon relied upon details of cheques No.996536 date 7.6.11, 996537 dated 7.7.11, 996538 dated 7.8.11 and 993539  dated 7.11.11,  copy of I-Card and copy of student invoice dated 18.4.11.     The Opposite Party filed affidavit of Dr. Vasanti Neelakantan  dated 13.10.13 wherein he asserted the stand taken in the reply  and once again prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.  

We have heard the complainant in person and Ld. Counsel of Opposite Party at length and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.  We are of the opinion that the main controversy/ issue is “whether Mr. Yogesh Nandal , complainant, is 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 institutionals are not service providers. Therefore, the students are not consumers. Similar view is taken by another bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

3/-

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 Mayank Tiwari vs  Fiitjee decided on 8.12.14, in Revision Petition No. 3365/2006 titled FIITJEE VS DR.(MRS) MINATHI RATH, in Revision Petition No. 1805/2007 titled FITJEE VS B.B.POPLI, Revision Petition No. 3496/2006 P.T.Education vs 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 vs Mayank Tiwari decided on 23.9.14.

       Similar are the facts of the present complaint .The complainant  took admission with opposite party an education Institution  in  board cum one year classroom programme on payment of the 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 time and again 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 : 20.12.16

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

  (URMILA GUPTA)                                            (R.S.  BAGRI)

                          MEMBER                                                    PRESIDENT