The petitioner files this complaint u/.s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the OP Schoolin the complaint case no.RBT/CC/371/2021 alleging unfair trade practices with a prayer for refund of fees paidalongwithcost.

The gist of the complaint as per the averments made by the complainant is that the complainant decided for her daughter to get admitted in the Kindergarten – 2  standard during 2017-18 session at the OP Schoolnamely Delhi Public School, Megacity situated at West Bengal. After contactingthe schoolby paying admission and other fees for Rs. 80,500/- against money receipton account of Rs. 27,500/- for Development fee, Rs. 5,000/- for Security deposit, Rs. 27,500/- as Admission fee , Rs. 18,000/- as Session fee and Learning assessment &Rs. 2,500/- as cost of Learning assessment & Profile a registration no. 001678 was allotted to the student.The case of the complainant is that after few days the father of the studentgot transferred to Gurgaon, Haryana. The complainant communicated school several times by letters and on 02.01.2017 and visited school on 06.01.2017, since they decided to opt out of the school and to take full refund of the said Rs.80,500/ that was paid to school.Soft copy of the relocation letter of the office of the father of student was provided to school by complainant. The OP school neither refunded the said amount nor replied to their letter. The complainant approached through the Consumer commission and hence the case.The complainant alleged that OP school had not refunded the admission and allied fees.after deduction of Rs 1,000/- as per UGC norms.The complainant has thus alleged and filed documents including various exhibits, alongwith the receipts and replies exchanged between them and the OP school. The petitioner in the instant petition, prays for refund of admission fees ofRs. 80,500/- along with interest and compensation for50,000/- as damages for mental agony and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/-.

The complaint petition was admitted to examine the dispute through written version, evidences, questionnaire/ reply and brief notes of arguments from both sides to determine the nature and characteristics of the complaint. The Ld. Advocate of the OP appeared and filed W/V and contested thereafter.

The complainanton behalf of her ward has claimed being herself entitled for compensation as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The notice dated 16.01.2017 of the complainant served on OP school is exhibited.But the Ld. Counsel of the OP statedinteralia that the the student took admission and in the conditions of schoofadmission it was clearly stated to the guardian that once admission gets confirmed, the same can not be cancelled or refunded thereof. The guardian and the candidate visited the school and theafter taken admission with duly agreed terms and conditions.The Ld. Advoicate of the OP school stated that as per school , it had already been mentioned to the guardian during admission that once admission is taken by a student, the same can not be cancelled or admission fee refunded. He also contested that the claim of the complainant having a transfer order to different city is incorrect as it transpires from the document exhibited by the complainant that the same is a new job offer and not a transfer order from existing employer.

The complaintunder referenceis examined threadbare based on available records &documents as exhibited alongwith evidence from complainant and the grounds stated therein.Dates of arguments were being fixed but getting adjourned by taking time by both sides on various grounds on 29.06.2020, 25.08.2022, 09.11.2022, 27.12.2022 and 17.02.23.

From the contents and context of the case as advanced by the Ld. Advocate of the complainant read with all the records, it is conspicuous that this case is all about imparting ‘education’ by a recognised institution.After perusal of records, it is observed that the opposite party school is running a School affiliated by Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations. (CISCE). The CISCE board affiliation code for Delhi Public School Megacity is found  WB276 in the public domain.

But ‘Education’ is not a commodity and students taking education cannot be said to be a consumer. There are exceptions in the cases of disputes related to‘coaching centres’ with specific promises on coaching the students with or without job promiseetc.etc.For this reason, the elements present in the instant case was perused and upon perusal it is found that as per the elements present in the case in hand, the complaint is not falling under the scopes and meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1986andhence, can not be taken upfor adjudication in view of the latest judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other higher foras. So we have not gone into the merit of the case in hand.

Now we have a relook of the plethora of recent Judgements till 2022 in respect of the contention that ‘education - being not a commodity and students taking education, can’t be said to be a consumer and hence not covered under the CP Act 1986. It will be appropriate to go though the relevant reportable Judgements of Apex Court & National Commission in this regards, as follows :-

(A) SLP (C) No. 22532/2012 titled as P.T. Koshy &Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust &Ors

The only question raised in this case is whether a college is a service provider for the purposes of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed the decision of this Court in MaharshiDayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur. (2010) 11 SCC 159. The aforesaid decision was followed by this Court in SLP (C) No. 22532/2012 titled as P.T. Koshy &Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust &Ors. The order reads as follows: "In view of the judgment of this Court in MaharshiDayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, 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. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition. Thus, the special leave petition is dismissed". In view of the consistent opinion expressed by this Court, the orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 3571/2013 and Revision Petition No. 807/2017 are not in accordance with the decision of this Court and are therefore set aside. The civil appeals are allowed."

In the case titled Manu Solanki and Ors.VsVinayaka Mission University I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC), while addressing the issue whether an Educational Institution is a 'Service Provider' for the purpose of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Larger Bench of this Commission held: -

"Keeping in view MaharshiDayanand University (supra) has addressed on merits and the question of law in detail and the same has been consistently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy &Anr. (supra), Prof. K.K. Ramachandran (supra) and the latest decision of Anupama College of Engineering (supra), we are of the considered view that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the last judgment that is Anupama College of Engineering (supra) has to be followed.

It is settled law, as stated in the aforementioned precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Commission, that Educational Institutions do not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  and not a "service" within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.Therefore, the Complainant is not a consumer and the Complaint not being covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."

(B) LBS Group of education school vs. Arjun Singh 2021 (1) CPJ (NC) 151 dated 31.8.2020

In the matter of  LBS Group of education school vs. Arjun Singh 2021 (1) CPJ (NC) 151 dated 31.8.2020 wherein, it is held as under: “ We have heard learned Counsels for the Parties and perused the documents placed on record. In our considered view, a Preliminary Issue as to whether Educational Institutions providing Education and other Incidental Activities to the students come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not arises in this case and the said issue is squarely covered by the decision of a Larger Bench of three Members of this Commission in the case of Manu Solanki and Others Vs. Vinayak Mission University and other connected cases, 1(2020) CPJ, 2010, wherein the Larger Bench has held that Educational matters do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, the Complaint is not maintainable. Relevant portion of the Order is reproduced below for ready reference :-................

‘In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre- admission as well as post-admission, except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.’

(C)Civil Appeal No. 17802 of 2017 between Anupama College of Engineering vs. Gulshan Kumar and Ors. dated 30.10.2017 by Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein, it is held as under:

“Learned counsel for the appellant has placed the decision of this Court in MaharshiDayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur [(2010) 11 SCC 159]. The aforesaid decision was followed by this Court in SLP (C) No. 22532/2012 titled as P.T. Koshy &Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust &Ors. The order reads as follows:

In view of the judgment of this Court in MaharshiDayanand University v. SurjeetKaur[(2010) 11 SCC 159] wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a verified 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."

In the matter of  MaharshiDayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur dated 19.7.2010 wherein, it is held as under:

“Considering the ratio laid down in the above referred judgments that the education is not commodity and service imparting education institution cannot be held to be service provider and student cannot be said to be a consumer. Therefore, consumer court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter pertaining to the deficiency of service in education.”

(D). In another Appeal case in the matter of Registrar, Manonmaniam Vs Sreosi Chatterjee &Ors. on 7 March, 2022 at NCDRC NEW DELHI in Revision Petition no 554 of 1986 against the Order dated 03/12/2018 in Appeal No. 905/2016 of SCDRC, West Bengal

“There may be instances where there may be defect/deficiency of service in pre-admission stages by an educational Institution but as the educational Institutions are not rendering any service by imparting education, these instances will also not give any right for a person to approach the Consumer Fora under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The main purpose and objective of NCVET is to recognize and regulate and assess the skill related service regulators. It is clarified that even if there is any defect/deficiency/unfair trade practice in the services offered by private bodies in offering these courses and are not regulated and do not confer any Degree or Diploma recognized by any Approved Authority do fall within the ambit of definition of 'Educational Institutions' and hence the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain the same.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport, etc. except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

This Commission considered all the records and documents and exhibits and the grounds stated in the complaint petitionand as the complaint is all about imparting ‘education’, after a threadbare perusal, this commission is of the view that the instant complaint is not falling under the scopes and meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is a mistaken view of the Ld. Advocate of the complainant who contended during final argument that the school of this OP in the case in hand, does not fall under the arena who conduct statutory courses. In view of the foregoing discussions and observations, the Complaint filed by the Complainant herein stands dismissed as not maintainable, after going through and perusing the factum that whether this OP school is falling under educational institute or not. However, liberty is given to the Complainant to take recourse of such other remedy as available under law. 

ORDER

Therefore, the complaint is not allowed. The consumer is at liberty to file appropriate proceeding or remedy as available under law. It goes without saying that time spent in this proceeding before this Commission is excluded of the for the Limitation period for filing appropriate proceeding, if any.

There will be no order as to costs.

Copy of this order may be provided free of cost to the parties as per CPR.

Dictated and corrected by

[HON'BLE MR. Partha Kumar Basu]
MEMBER