24.11.2014.

MRIDULA ROY, MEMBER.

The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.07.2013 passed by Ld. District Forum, South 24 Parganas in Complaint Case being No. 37 of 2013 dismissing the same on contest without cost.

Being aggrieved by the order the Complainant has preferred the instant appeal.

The case of the Complainant (Appellant herein), in brief, is that the Complainant got herself admitted to the O.P. – Educational Centre (Respondent herein) on 09.02.2014 to pursue the course of Advance Diploma in Multilingual Multimedia.  Duration of the said course was four months and the course fee was fixed at  Rs.20,000/- and the instalment per month was fixed at Rs.1,050/- while Rs.1,000/- was considered as course fee and Rs.50/- was considered as library fee.  The Complainant paid the entire fees on 06.07.2010, but the said course had not been completed yet.  Initially, the Complainant used to attend the classes thrice in a week, but subsequently could not attend the classes regularly due to her personal inconvenience.  The Complainant further got herself admitted to the course of ‘Diploma in Multilingual Office Automation & Financial Accounting’ and also paid the entire course fee of Rs.5,000/-.  But, in spite of that some parts of syllabus of the course had not been taught by the O.P.  Hence, the Complainant filed the complaint case praying for direction upon the O.P. to pass an order directing the O.P. to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- for deficiency in completing the course and to provide certificate and also to refund the course fee.

The O.P. contested the case and filed Written Version denying all the material allegations contending, inter alia, that the Complainant was served with show-cause notice dated 08.01.2010 and subsequently suspended for 15 days for misbehaviour within education centre.  The O.P. further stated that the Complainant attended classes irregularly and for that very reason the course in which she admitted could not be completed in time.  It is the specific defence of the O.P. that the Complainant could not complete the course due to her own negligence and indisciplined nature for which the O.P. cannot be held liable.  Accordingly, the O.P. has prayed for dismissal of the complaint case.

In course of hearing of the appeal Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the Respondent – authorities put some false allegations against her and she was asked to show-cause on the score of that false allegation in writing on 08.01.2011.  Ld. Advocate for the Appellant specifically submitted that the course to which she admitted has not been completed although she has paid entire course fee. 

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has submitted that the Appellant – student is very much indisciplined in nature and also very much irregular in attending the classes conducted by the Respondent – Educational Institute.  It is the specific submission of the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent that due to the irregular attendance the Complainant – Appellant could not complete the course to which she admitted and, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent.  Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has also submitted that the Respondent Educational Institute even arranged for extra classes for the Appellant, but the Appellant also did not attend the same. 

Having heard submissions made by both sides and on perusal of the materials on record it appears  that the point to be determined is whether or not the complaint is maintainable under the C. P. Act. 

To arrive at a conclusion on this point we rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission dated 28.07.2014 in the matter of “Globsyn Business School – vs. – Aritra Siddharth Basu” in Revision Petition No. 4620 of 2012 wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has been pleased to hold as follows:- “………………….It is pertinent to note that Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding SLP (Civil) filed against the order of NCDRC in Revision Petition No.605/2012 in the matter of P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. (supra) has observed thus: -

In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SSC 159 wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgmetns has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition. Thus, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

In view of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner institute cannot be termed as service provider and, therefore, there is no question of any deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner in refusing to refund the tuition fee.

In view of the discussion above, we are of the opinion that the Foras below have committed jurisdictional error and passed the impugned orders without taking into account the terms and conditions agreed between the parties. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed,

orders passed by the State Commission as also the District Fora are set aside and the complaint filed by the respondent is dismissed. …………. ”  In this connection it is the specific contention of the O.P./Respondent that the Complainant was neither in attending the classes and she was asked to show-cause.  It has further been contended that the O.P. arranged special classes, even then the Complainant did not attend the classes.  The O.P. has also filed papers in support of such contention.

Under the circumstances, we are of the view that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

Hence, ordered that the appeal is dismissed on contest without cost.  The impugned judgment is affirmed.