This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Sumit Upadhyay, against the order dated 04.04.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.164 of 2018. 2. Complainant got admission in opposite party (School) in 11th class & deposited Rs.4,500/- as registration fee. When the complainant went to school to submit school fee, opposite party refused to give concession as promised and pressurised to pay Rs.12,800/- as school fee. Opposite party also gave an option to pay Rs.15,000/- for attending private coaching classes, which complainant refused. Classes were taught by private tutors due to non-availability of science teachers and only to students who had paid coaching fees. So there was no science teacher for 11th class students in school. Complainant was prevented to attend science class as the coaching fee was not paid. Opposite party asked the complainant to take T.C. when approached by complainant for such acts. Opposite party compelled complainant to mention other reason for TC or else the same will not be given. 3. Aggrieved, complainant filed a complaint bearing No.23 of 2010 in District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mathura (in short ‘the District Forum’). District Forum has dismissed the complaint that the evidence & records produced are not clear; complainant is free to take legal action in the competent court in the said context. 4. Appeal bearing No.164 of 2018 was filed. State Commission dismissed the same on the ground that the appeal/complaint against opposite party is not admissible as providing education by educational institution is not a service under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 5. Hence, revision petition. 6. Heard the petitioner in person. He stated that the District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was no proof to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party when the complainant was asked to take T.C. and the T.C. was only to be given if actual reason was not written in the application. There was no option but to get T.C. anyhow, so that complainant could be admitted in some other school. On filing the appeal the State Commission has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the student is not a consumer and education institution is not a service provider. Petitioner stated that the petitioner has not attended the school because there were no teachers particularly for the science subject. The complainant had not joined the coaching as was being insisted upon by the opposite party. The petitioner has relied upon the following judgments to emphasise that this Commission has granted relief to the student in such cases:- “1. M/s. FIITJEE Limited Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Jain, 2013 SCC OnLine NCDRC 375. 2. Punjab Technical University Vs. Abhinav Aggarwal & Ors., 2013 SCC OnLine NCDRC 706.” 7. The petitioner further referred to the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Km. Surya Shukla and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., W.P. No.3173 (MS) of 2005 decided on 4.04.2007. 8. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the petitioner and have examined the record. First of all, it is seen that there is a delay of one day in filing the revision petition. As the delay is only of one day, the same is condoned on the ground mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the District Forum has not found any deficiency on the part of the opposite party whereas, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant on the ground that the student is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is true that Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159 has observed that a student is not a consumer and education institution is not a service provider. This observation has been made in the light of the fact that the consumer forum had passed an order which was against the provisions of the statute governing the university. In the present case no provision of any statute will be violated if the consumer forum considers the refund of the fees. It is further seen that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T.Koshy & anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., Civil Appeal No.22532 of 2012 decided on 09.08.2012 has observed the following:- “In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments 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.” 9. This Commission has taken a view in WLC College India Ltd. Vs. Ajay S. Bhat, RP No.1385 of 2013 decided on 09.02.2016 (NC) as follows:- 12. …………………I have gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that in case of Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur (supra) the issue was related to issuance of B.Ed. degree, which can only be issued as per the Rules and Regulations of the concerned University. Similarly, in the case of Mayank Tiwari Vs. FIITJEE Ltd. RP No.4335 of 2015, decided on 08.12.2014 (NC), the complainant discontinued with his coaching on account of not being satisfied with quality of coaching. In the case of P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., Civil Appeal No.22532 of 2012 decided on 9.8.2012, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has relied on its judgment in case of Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur (supra) and has 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.” The facts of these cases relate to statutory powers and functions of the educational institutions or the quality of education. The facts of the present case relate to the administrative aspects and are different from the cases cited.” 10. The observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of fees may be taken as fixation of fees rather than refund of fees. A case of refund of fees could not be affected by the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as it does not relate to the academic activities of the institutions. From this point of view in this case the opposite party has charged fees only for six months. The complainant has stated that as per T.C. given the student has attended classes only for 19 days, though actually the student never attended classes as there was no science teacher. In fact, if the complainant had not attended the class even for one month, the opposite party is not entitled to retain the total fees charged. Clearly, the complainant is not entitled to refund of the whole fees. It is seen that the registration fees of Rs.4,500/- has been paid and the school fees was Rs.12,800/-. As the registration fees was already utilised in the registration of the student, the same cannot be refunded. However, as the student has attended only for 19 days, at the most, the school can retain 50% of the school fees, therefore, the complainant is entitled to 50% of the school fees. As the amount is very meagre, no notice is being issued to the respondent school and it is ordered that the respondent school shall refund a sum of Rs.6,400/- to the petitioner/complainant along with interest @5% p.a. from the date of issuing of the T.C. till actual payment. However, as notice is not being issued to the respondent/opposite party and if the respondent is not satisfied with this order, the respondent may approach this Commission for contesting the matter otherwise the order be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The revision petition no.2180 of 2019 is accordingly disposed of. | 
