BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 8^th DAY OF APRIL 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act, 1986 2019(herein under referred as an Act) for the following reliefs against the OP:-

(a) Direct the OP to return fee amount of Rs.18,225.82.

(b) To pay interest at rate of 18% p.a. on the paid amount from the date of payment.

(c) To pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony etc.,

(d) All legal expenses incurred.         

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant having paid Rs.18,225.82 on online on 01.01.2019 joined online course Deep Learning : Theory and Practice with OP.  Even though, he got registered to the portal provided by the OP.  But, he could not attend online session on 10.01.2019.  He was unable to attend online course and he left the course and asked for total refund.  But, OP failed to refund the amount.  Hence, this complaint for deficiency of service.

3. In response to the notice, OP appears and files version.  The Op contends that there is no relationship between complainant and OP as Consumer and Service provider, the complaint is untenable.  The OP being the Education Institution does not fall under the ambit of C.P.Act.  The complainant opted course but voluntarily discontinued the course.  The E-mail of the complainant dated 14.01.2019 has been suitably replied by E-mail dated 15.01.2019.  On 16.01.2019, the OP requested the complainant to take the network.  On 17.01.2019, the complainant informed the OP that his office had disabled to assess the live videos on the office network and he was unable to assess the live videos streaming classes.  The OP never discontinued the course.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service.  The OP requests to dismiss the complaint.

4. The complainant files his affidavit evidence and relies on 6 documents.  The affidavit evidence of Assistant Registrar of OP has been filed and OP relies on 10 documents.  Heard the arguments and perused the records.

5. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

6. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  In the negative.

      Point No.2:- In the negative.

      Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

7. Point Nos.1 and 2:  Both the parties have reiterated their respective contention in their affidavit evidence and relies on the documents.
8. At the first instance, we would like to refer some of the admitted and proved facts.  The complainant applied for online course with OP by paying Rs.18,225.82.  The OP intimated the complainant by E-mail dated 07.01.2019 that the students have login to the online portal of the OP on 10.01.2019 at 2 PM and classes will be on 10.01.2019 from 6 PM.  The OP also intimated that 75% attendance is mandatory to take final examination.  Accordingly, the complainant has issued E-mail message dated 10.01.2019.  The OP also issued a reply dated 17.03.2019.  It is admitted by the complainant in the complaint as well as in the affidavit evidence that he was not able to join the online classes on 10.01.2019 and accordingly, he dropped the course.  It is not the case of the complainant that the OP without any intimation to the complainant cancelled the online classes. 
9. The representative of the OP along with authorized letter has filed affidavit evidence opposing the contention of the complainant.  The brochure is marked as Ex.B.2 which clearly indicates that “refund of course feel will not be made, unless the course is withdrawn officially, in which case, the course fee paid will be refunded in full.  Application registration fee one paid will not be refunded under any circumstance.  Refund of fee in case of dropped courses will take minimum 3-4 weeks”. 
10. This brochure in the form of hand book is binding on the complainant.  The OP has issued message through online on 01.07.2019 with regard to online course on Deep Learning : Theory and Practice.  Subsequently, OP has issued E-=mail on time to time.  The OP never discontinued the course and online course is not dropped by the OP.  The complainant himself discontinued the online classes.
11. It is one of the contention of the OP that the OP being the education institution/university does not fall within the ambit of C.P.Act.  The OP places the reliance on the following judgements:-

1. Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur reported in (2010 ) 11 SCC 159.
2. Manu Solanki and others Vs. Vinayaka Mission University and others reported in 2020 (1) CPR 773.
3. Rajendra Kumar Gupta Vs. Virendra Swarup Public School and others reported in 2021 (2) CPR 217.
4. University of Petroleum and Energy Studies Vs. Anuj Kanwal reported in 2020 (3) CPR 84.
5. Palle Sriharinath Vs. P.Narayana and others reported in Manu/XT/0002/2021.
6. P.T.Koshy and another Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust and others reported in Manu/Scor/00053/2012.

12. We carefully perused the facts and ratio involved in the above decisions.  In all the decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble National Commission have categorically ruled that the complaint under the provision of C.P.Act against the Education Institution is not maintainable.  The complainant has not placed any decisions contrary to these decisions.  The Op beings the Education Institution/University, the complaint against OP under the provision of C.P.Act is not maintainable.
13. Apart from non-maintainability of complaint also there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP as complainant himself discontinued the course without any fault of the OP.  Under such circumstances, complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs against OP.
14. Point No.3:- Having regard to the discussion made in the preceding paragraph, the complaint requires to be dismissed. We proceed to pass the following  

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. No costs.   
3. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 8^th April, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-

Documents produced by the OP which are as follows:-