BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 480/2013

DATED ON THIS THE 13^th January 2017

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri Devakumar.M.C.

Member

1.    The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- towards the mental agony, inconvenience and hardship caused.
2.     The complainant’s son studied in opposite party’s institution from LKG to 9^th Standard without any problem.  The opposite party threaten him to issue T.C. for not passing the 9^th standard examination, through there was provision in CBSE Rules.  The institution prevented the complainant’s son from getting admission in Rotary Education School and Christian Institution.  Later, he was forced to get admission in Government School.  Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed the complaint, seeking reliefs.
3.     The opposite party admits the complainant’s son as its student.  As he received ‘E’ grade in 9^th Standard Main Examination, he failed to appear in re-examination offered by the installation, at the request of the complainant, his son was allowed to appear in the examination conducted later. Further, the opposite party denies the baseless allegations as false.  There was no enquiry made by the complainant for admission to State Syllabus and the opposite party has not directed to take the transfer certificate.  The opposite party submits it has collected the fee and issue appropriate receipt for the same.  As such, there is no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant and hence opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4.     To establish the facts, the parties filed their respective affidavit evidence along with documents.  Written arguments filed and after hearing the oral submissions perused the material on record and posted the matter for orders.
5.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the complainant established the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
3.  What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- Does not call for discussion.

Point No.3 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- The complainant’s son, who studied in opposite party institution, secured grade ‘E’ in his 9^th standard examination.  The opposite party offered him to appear in re-examination, but he failed to appear and later at the request of the parents, the opposite party conducted re-examination.  Subsequently, the complainant sought for transfer to state syllabus and the same was considered by opposite party, accordingly, issued the Transfer Certificate. The complainant’s son joined the Government High School at Nanjangud and pursue his education. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant has filed the complaint and sought for the reliefs.
8.    The opposite party denied the other baseless allegations of the complainant, as false.  It is collected fee as prescribed and provided better education to all its students equally.  In spite of the same, the complainant’s son could not perform well in the 9^th standard main examination.  As such, contended that there is no deficiency in service on its part and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint, with costs.
9.    The complainant relied on judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India between Maharshi Dayand University U/s Surjeet Kaur, wherein it is observed that, education is not a commodity and Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service in the matter of admission, fees etc., and there cannot be any deficiency in service and such matter cannot be entertained under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 
10. However, the opposite party relied on judgement rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission in Regional Institute of Co-operative Management Vs Naveen Kumar Choudhary, wherein the Commisison, relied on the same opinion, rendered in Maharshi Dayanand University V/s Surjeet Kour and held Educaiton is not a Commodity and Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service and there cannot be any deficiency in service.  Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the C.P.Act, 1986.
11. In view of the above said judgements, we opine that the complainant filed by the complaint, is not maintainable before this Forum and the same is liable for dismissed.   Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative.  
12. Point No.2:- In view of the above, this point does not call for discussion.
13. Point No.3:- In view of the above observations, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 13^th January 2017)

                          (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) 

                                      PRESIDENT     

(M.V.BHARATHI)                           (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.)

      MEMBER                                         MEMBER