Delhi

West Delhi

CC/12/929

Shri Amit Bajaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

DQ School of Visual Arts - Opp.Party(s)

04 Feb 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                      Date of institution: 24.12.2012

Complaint Case. No.929/12                                                         Date of order: 04.02.2017                   

IN  MATTER OF

Shri Amit Bajaj, Presently at K-63, 1^st floor, New Mahavir Nagar, New Delhi-110018. Permanent R/o 1096/13 Adarsh Colony, Rohtak, Haryana 124001                                                                                                                                                                            Complainant

        VERSUS

DQ School of Visual Arts, A-23 Rajouri Garden (Near Rajouri Metro Station), New Delhi- 110027                                                                                                                 Opposite party

 

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

Briefly case of the complainant is that he took admission in DQIEP certificate course with the Opposite Party an education institution on payment of requisite fee. The complainant within two months realized that opposite party is not imparting  quality training and lack trained faculties. After one year he was compelled to leave the institute. The complainant approached and requested the Opposite Party to refund the fee.  But the Opposite Party refused to refund the same.   Hence, the present complaint for directions  to  the Opposite Party to pay Rs.1,20,000/-of the fee charged and pay compensation on account of  loss of study, lodging and  boarding charges, litigation expenses and mental pain and agony and  deficiency in service.  

            After notice Opposite Party appeared and filed reply admitting that the complainant took admission with the Opposite Party. The opposite party while raising preliminary objections asserted that complainant has concealed material facts and the complaint is against terms and conditions.  The opposite party on merits denied the allegations and asserted that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their part. They further asserted that as per the terms and conditions of contract the Opposite Parties are not liable to refund fee under any circumstance and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

    

        -2-

The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of Opposite Party wherein he once again reiterated his stand taken in the complaint and controverted the stand taken by the Opposite Party.  

We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.  We are of the opinion that the main controversy/ issue is “whether Mr.Amit Bajaj 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 institutions 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 complaint. The complainant took admission in DQIEP  33 months certification course with opposite party an education Institution on payment of 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 Consistently 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.

       -3-

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

Order pronounced on : 04.02.2017

• 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