Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/226

Narender singh bisat - Complainant(s)

Versus

Computer professional - Opp.Party(s)

06 Dec 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:21.03.16

Complaint case No.226/16                                                                                                Date of Order        :06.12.16

In the matter of

Narender Singh Bisht

S/o Gajender Singh Bisht

P-42,I Extension ,Mohan Garden

Uttam Nagar,New Delhi-59                                                                                            COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

Computec Professional Group

B-117,Mohan Garden(Pipal Road)

Uttam Nagar,Delhi-59                                                                                                  OPPOSITE PARTY

                                                                                                           

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT

 

            Brief relevant facts for disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant  took admission with Opposite Party  for pursuing dot net course for two and  a half month on payment of requisite fee. The faculty member Mr. Rahul of Opposite Party after taking few classes stop taking classes.  On inquiry the Complainant was told by Opposite Party that Mr. Rahul is not well. But despite several requests by the Complainant to provide some other teacher for taking the  classes , the Opposite Party failed to provide any substitute teacher. The Opposite Party failed to provide any teacher for taking classes even after one year . Therefore, the complainant asked the opposite party to refund fee paid by him.  The  Opposite Party told the Complainant to submit payment receipt and thereafter they will refund the fee. But despite assurances  Opposite Party failed to refund the fee. Hence, the present complaint.

            Notice of the Complaint was sent to the Opposite Party. But despite service none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party. Therefore the opposite party was proceeded exparte vide order dated 05.08.16 .

             The Complainant was asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit .  The  complainant filed affidavit dated 06.12.16 wherein he once again reiterated his stand taken in the complaint.   He relied upon  copies of receipts dated 03.11.15 and 19.10.15.

We have heard  Complainant in person and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly. We are of the opinion that the main controversy/ issue is “whether Complainant,  is consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and the opposite party is service provider”?

 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 no.22532/12 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 29.1.2015 ,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 party educational Institution in dot net course on payment of the requisite fee.   The opposite party  is imparting 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 party is not service provider and the  complainant is not a consumer under the  Consumer Protection Act.

 

 Therefore, complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act-1986.  . Resultantly  the complaint is dismissed.

 

Order pronounced on :06.12.16

 

• 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