Delhi

West Delhi

CC/12/85

VIVEK GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DELHI ACADEMY OF MEDICAL SCIENCE - Opp.Party(s)

16 Sep 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              7.2.12

Case. No.85/12                                                                                                                                 Date of order:                        16.9.16

 

 

In the matter of

 

Sh.Vivek Gupta,

R/o 1-117, Ashok Vihar,

Phase-1, New Delhi-52.                                                                                                                                COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

Delhi Academy of Medical Science,

Through its Chairperson,

Grover Chamber,

4-B,IIIrd Floor,

Pusa Road, New Delhi-05                                                                                                             OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

ORDER

 

R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT

 

            The present complaint is brought by Vivek Gupta,complainant against Delhi Academy of Medical Science, the Opposite Party u/s 12 of the C.P.A-1986 for  seeking directions to the Opposite Party to refund  fee and pay compensation.    

 

 

-2-

            The brief facts necessary for  disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant’s daughter   joined coaching classes with Opposite Party for preparation of  competitive entrance exam for post graduate medical course by paying requisite fee.  It was agreed by the complainant and the Opposite Party that the fee would be refunded if there is prior selection before the completion of course.  The complainant’s daughter was selected in the post graduate course after one month.    Hence the complainant asked the Opposite Party to refund the excess amount paid to them.   But the Opposite Party did not pay the same.  Hence the present complaint for  direction to the Opposite Party to refund the excess course fee, pay compensation and litigation expenses. 

 

            After notice Opposite Party filed reply to the complaint asserting that there is no cause of action and that the complainant  is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act-1986, as the Opposite Party is imparting education  and they are not service providers.  The Opposite Party prayed for the dismissal  of the complaint.  

 

            The parties were asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit in support of their version.   The complainant filed affidavit dated 12.6.13 and once again reiterated the stand taken in the complaint and controverting the allegations alleged by the Opposite Party in the reply. In support of his case he filed photocopies of receipt of fee dated 11.3.11  and 13.4.11, legal notice dated 22.7.11 and reminder dated 9.8.11.    The Opposite Party filed affidavit of Aayush Sharma dated 25.11.13 reiterating the stand taken in the reply. 

 

            We have heard the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record carefully and thoroughly.    We are of the opinion that the main controversy is “whether daughter of 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

-3-

providers. Therefore the students are not consumers. Similar view is taken by another bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in special leave petition no22532/12 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’s daughter  took admission with opposite party for coaching for entrance exam for post graduate medical course.  The opposite party is giving 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  student is not a consumer underthe  Consumer Protection Act.      Therefore, complaint is not maintainable. Resultantly  the complaint is dismissed.

Order pronounced on :16.09.2016

 

• 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