DATE OF DISPOSAL: 22.07.2024

PER:  SMT. SARITRI PATTANAIK, MEMBER (W)

            The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties  (in short O.Ps.) for redressal of her grievance before this Commission. After obtaining the permission from the Dist. Commission, the complainants filed the complaint for following reliefs –

1. Directing opposite parties to issue certificate of the final examination of 1^st year B.Ed certificate course of 16 students in the session 2013-14 who have appeared through the opposite party no.1; and
2. To pay compensation towards agonies suffered due to the negligence, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service of the opposite parties no. 2 to 4; and
3. To hand over the certificate of completion of course of 1^st year B.Ed course in the session 2013-14 and for refund the course fees of complainants of Rs.2,75,000/- @ Rs.55000/- each;
4. To remove the deficiencies in the services in question; and
5. To discontinue the unfair trade practice and also direct the opposite party not to repeat in future; and
6. To provide adequate cost to the complainants; and
7. And such other and further relief as the respected forum deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the proceedings.

2.         The complainants deposited their course fees with the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 through opposite party no.1. But the said opposite party nos. 2 & 3 did not chose to issue any invoice to that effect as amount received from the opposite party no.1. The opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have conducted the examination after completion of the theory and practical classes on 07.09.2015 and 08.09.2015 respectively. But the op no.4 reserved the declaration of result of the final examination which was conducted on 20^th July 2015 and completed on 30^th July 2015. But after long elapse of time the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 did not declare final examination results and for which, the complainants approached the office of the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 through different means. For such acts of the opposite party nos. 2 to 4, now the complainants suffering from irreparable losses and the opposite parties have provided deficient services by not declaring the results of the final examination and certificates. Hence, this complaint.

3.         Considering on the point of admissibility of the complaint, the Commission issued notices to the opposite parties.

4.         Duly acknowledging the notice from the Commission, the Opposite Party no.1 filed its written version. The Opposite Parties admitted the complaint of the complainants. The opposite party no.1 is also admitted that, he has deposited the course fees with the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 which was received from the complainants. And also cooperated the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 to conduct the theory and practical classes of the complainants on scheduled dates and final examinations.

5.         The opposite party no.4 filed a preliminary legal objections dated:22.08.2016 against the Maintainability of the case through post which was received vide no.:249/29.08.2016 at the District Commission, Ganjam at Berhampur. The OP no.4 has submitted in the said petition that, the complainant is not a consumer under Sec.2(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and imparting of education does not fall within the paraphernalia of ‘Consumer Dispute’ as defined in Sec.2(e) of the Act, 1986. The opposite party no.4 also relied upon the citation reported at (2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 159 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that, ‘respondent as a student is neither consumer nor university is rendering any service to its students. Hence Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain complaint.’

6.         The opposite party no. 2 & 3 neither appeared nor filed any steps to the objection of the complaint.

7.         The Commission perused the case record as both the parties did not take any steps for further proceedings consistently in the Commission and remained absent.

Law is well settled by the NCDRC, in its judgment of January 20, had said, "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."

The Commission is placing reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in P.T.Koshy & Anr. vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., reported in 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC), submitted that Students are not consumers and education is not a commodity and that Educational Institutions are not rendering ‘Service.’

In the light of the above decision of law, the Commission dismissed the case. No order as to cost.

This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Order.

Pronounced on 22.07.2024.