Date of Filing : 10.12.2021
Date of Disposal: 18.05.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., B.L., .....MEMBER -I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,.MCom., ICWA(Inter)., B.L., ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.26/2022
THIS THURSDAY, THE 18th DAY OF MAY 2023
1.Mr.S.Velu, S/o.Subbarayalu,
2.Ms.V.Pushpalatha, D/o.S.Velu,
Both are residing at
No.3/124. Ambethkar Street,
Mangapuram Colony,
Tiruttani Taluk, Thiruvallur District. .........Complainants.
//Vs//
1.Mr.Uma Naidu, President,
Dr.V.Gengusami Naidu
Matriculation Higher Secondary School,
Thiruttani.
2.Mr.Babu Naidu,
Dr.V.Gengusami Naidu
Matriculation Higher Secondary School,
Thiruttani.
3.Mr.Sathyaseelan Naidu,
Dr.V.Gengusami Naidu
Matriculation Higher Secondary School,
Thiruttani. ...Opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : Party in person.
Counsel for the opposite parties : Mr.A.R.Poovannan, Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 27.04.2023 in the presence of complainant who appeared in person and Mr.A.R.Poovannan counsel for the opposite parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY P.VINOTH KUMAR, MEMBER - I
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties with respect to admission of his daughter along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant along with cost.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
The complainant had admitted her daughter V.Pushpa Latha in 9th standard in the opposite parties school. The complainant’s daughter passed 10th standard. The complainant approached the opposite parties 1 to 3 in person and by post to get admission for his daughter to 11th standard. But the opposite parties had ruined the education life of his daughter by not giving the admission to 11th standard after collecting Rs.20,000/- from the complainant. The complainant approached this commission by claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the opposite parties and hence the complaint.
Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties:-
The opposite parties denying the allegations in the complaint inter alia contended that the complainant’s daughter was a student and completed her 10th standard in their school. During the academic year 2019- 2020, she had not paid the school fees and upon request from complainant that he will repay the fees later. Hence his daughter was allowed to attend the class and write the exam. The complainant on his own made a request to the opposite parties to issue transfer certificate to his daughter to admit her in Government Higher Secondary School. As he could not afford the fees payable to the opposite parties, the opposite parties had collected Rs.20,000/-from the complainant being the part payment of fees payable by him. During the Enquiry by District Education Officer, Tiruttani, the District Education Officer suggested to admit the student in the next academic year and the same was accepted by the opposite parties and complainant. Later the complainant started to ask fee exemption and the same was denied by the opposite parties. There is no merit in the complaint and the opposite parties had not committed deficiency in service and therefore pray to dismiss the complaint.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A12. On the side of opposite parties proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 on their side.
Points for consideration:-
Whether the complainant is a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 2019?
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties received Rs.20,000/- from him and failed to give admission to his daughter for 11th standard. The opposite parties ruined the education life of his daughter. The complainant had approached this commission by claiming compensation from the opposite parties.
To prove the case of the complainant, the complainant deposed proof affidavit with 12 documents which were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A12. Ex.A1 is the letter given by the complainant to the opposite party, Ex.A2 is the complaint given by the complainant to the Thiruttani District Educational Officer, Ex.A3 is the complaint given by the complainant to the G1 Police Station, Thiruttani, Ex.A4 is the letter given by the complainant to the District Educational Officer, Ex.A5 is the letter given by the complainant to the District principal Educational Officer, Ex.A6 is the letter given by the complainant to the District Educational Officer, Ex.A7 is the complaint given by the complainant to the CM Cell, Ex.A8 is the receipt issued by the opposite parties for payment, Ex.A9 is the acknowledgement for proof of delivery, Ex.A10 is the letter issued by the Thiruttani District Educational Officer to the both parties for enquiry, Ex.A11 is the letter issued by District Principal Educational Officer to the both parties and Ex.A12 is the letter issued by District Educational Officer.
Per contra, the opposite parties inter alia contended that the complainant had not paid the fees for his daughter during the academic year 2019-2020. Upon request from the complainant that he will pay the fees later, his daughter was allowed to attend the classes and write the exams. The amount collected from the complainant is nothing but the part payment towards the fees payable by him. There is no merit in the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and pray to dismiss the complaint.
To refute the claim, the opposite parties had filed proof affidavit with 4 documents which were marked as Ex.B1to Ex.B4. Ex.B1 is the letter written by the complainant to the opposite party requesting time to pay the balance fees, Ex.B2 is the letter issued by District Legal Services Authority, Thiruvallur to the opposite party, Ex.B3 is the letter given by the opposite parties to the President, District Legal Services Authority, Thiruvallur and Ex.B4 is the Transfer Certificate of complainant’s daughter.
We perused all the documents and heard the oral argument advanced by both. The first and foremost point has to be decided in this case that whether the complainant is a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission in various judgments that Education is not a commodity and students are not consumers and therefore the complaint against Educational Institutions is not maintainable before the Consumer Commission. The judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in similar issues are reported hereunder
1.P.T.Kosly & Anr Vs Ellan charitable Trust & Ors. (2012 (3) CPC 613 (SC) )
It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that since educational institutions are not providing any kind of service on their part in matter of admission fees etc.
2. Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur (2010(ii) SCC 159)
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the complainant who takes an examination is not a consumer and the Board is not a service provider. Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 is not maintainable against the Board.
3.Anupama College of Engineering Vs Gulshan Kumar.
In the above case the Hon’ble Supreme Court placing reliance of the judgments in P.T.Kosly & Anr Vs Ellan chaintable Trust & Ors. and Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur has held that the education is not a commodity. Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service and therefore the complaint against Educational institutions cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The above referred judgments are squarely applicable to this case. The issue appears to be no longer res Integra as it is already dealt by a prominent case. Educational institutions is not service provider and they are not providing any kind of service in the matter of admission, fees etc. Education is not a commodity and therefore the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 2019. This point is answered accordingly.
Point No.2 & 3:-
Since we have come to the conclusion that the complainant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act 2019, the opposite parties had not committed deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed in the complaint and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the complaint is dismissed. These points are answered accordingly.
Dictated by the Member I to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the Member I and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 18th day of May 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 ................. Copy of letter given by the complainant to the opposite party regarding balance fees. Photo copy
Ex.A2 27.02.2021 Comlaint given by the complainant to the Thiruttani District Educational Officer. Photo copy
Ex.A3 01.03.2021 Complaint given by the complainant to the G1 Police Station, Thiruttani, Photo copy
Ex.A4 18.03.2021 Letter given by the complainant to the District Educational Officer, Thiruvallur. Photo copy
Ex.A5 09.08.2021 letter given by the complainant to the District principal Educational Officer. Photo copy
Ex.A6 10.06.2021 Letter given by the complainant to the District Educational Officer, Thiruvallur. Photo copy
Ex.A7 15.10.2021 Complaint given by the complainant to CM Cell. Photo copy
Ex.A8 27.02.2021 Receipts issued by the opposite parties for payment. Photo copy
Ex.A9 ................ Acknowledgement card. Photo copy
Ex.A10 15.03.2021 Letter issued by the Thiruttani District Educational Officer to the both parties for enquiry. Photo copy
Ex.A11 17.03.2021 Letter of District Principal Educational Officer, Photo copy
Ex.A12 17.03.2021 Letter issued by the District Educational Officer to the complainant. Photo copy
List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 27.02.2021 Copy of letter written by the complainant to the opposite party requesting time to pay the balance fees. Photo copy
Ex.B2 05.04.2022 Copy of letter issued by District Legal Services Authority, Thiruvallur to the opposite parties. Photo copy
Ex.B3 08.04.2022 Copy of letter given by the opposite parties to District Legal Services Authority, Thiruvallur. Photo copy
Ex.B4 17.08.2020 Transfer Certificate of Complainant’s daughter. Photo copy
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
