Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/48

Harshika Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Brilliant Tutorials - Opp.Party(s)

27 Aug 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           :23/01/14

 

Case. No48 /14                                                                                         Date of order                   :27/8/16

In the matter of   

Ms Harshika Sharma,

D/o Ashok Sharma,

House 1947, Sector-6,

Bahdurgarh, Haryana.                                                                       COMPLAINANT

Vs.

 

BRILLANT TUTORIALS PVT LTD

19/35 New Rohtak Road,

Near Maharaja Agrsen Hospital

PUNJABI BAGH (West), NEW DELHI

 

Also at

50C Kalu Sarai

Behind  Azad Apartments

New Delhi-16.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ….        OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT

           

       The present complaint is filed by Harkishika Sharma complainant against Brilliant tutorials pvt ltd and Ors opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for seeking directions to opposite parties to refund fee paid by her to the opposite parties with compensation on account of deficiency in service ,mental pain, agony , sufferings and loss of studies.

      The brief facts of the complaint are that complainant took   admission with the opposite parties for coaching classes on payment of fee. But the opposite parties closed the institution after sometime . Therefore, complainant suffered loss of studies. She asked the opposite parties to refund the fee and pay compensation. But to no effect.   Hence  the present complaint.

 

-2-

      The opposite parties filed reply while contesting the complaint and asserted that the complainant is not a consumer and opposite parties are not service providers  under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint . The opposite parties denied the allegations and asserted that there is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties. They are not liable to refund the fee and pay any compensation to complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

     The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of opposite parties while controverting the stand taken by opposite parties and reiterated her stand and once again prayed for direction to the opposite parties to refund the fee and pay compensation.

     When the complainant was asked to lead evidence, she filed affidavit dated 16.10.14,wherein she once again prayed for directions to opposite parties to refund the fee and pay compensation as prayed in the complaint. The complainant in support of her case relied upon copies of  payment receipts dated  3.2.11, 25.2.11 and 28.5.11 and ID card. The Opposite parties  also filed affidavit of Dr Vasanti Neelakantan in support of  their version.

     We have heard the complainant and counsel of opposite parties at length and have gone through the  complaint ,reply, affidavits and documents submitted by the parties and  we are of the opinion that the main controversy/ issue is “whether Harshika Sharma complainant,  is consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and the opposite parties are service providers”?

      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 special leave petition no22532/12 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 29.1.15,

-3-

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 case .The complainant  took admission with opposite parties for coaching. The opposite parties are giving 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 parties are not service providers and the  complainant is not a consumer under the  Consumer Protection Act.

      Therefore, complaint is not maintainable. Resultantly  the complaint is dismissed.

Order pronounced on :27.08.2016

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                               (URMILA GUPTA)                   (R.S.  BAGRI)

  MEMBER                                             MEMBER                               PRESIDENT