Delhi

West Delhi

CC/12/640

SATYA NARIAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

DURGA AUTOMOBILES - Opp.Party(s)

06 Oct 2016

ORDER

Present: Counsel for complainant.

ORDER

 

           

        This complaint u/s12 of the Consumer Protection Act is  filed by Mr. Subhash Bansal,complainant  against M/s Fiitjee Ltd and Ors opposite parties for seeking directions to opposite parties to refund fee paid by him for coaching of his son to the opposite parties with compensation on account of deficiency in service ,mental pain, agony , sufferings and loss of studies.

     We have heard Ld. Counsel for complainant at length and have gone through the  complaint  and documents submitted by the complainant   carefully and thoroughly.        

 

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 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 son Aditya Bansal   took admission with opposite parties for coaching. The opposite parties are 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 parties are not service providers and the  complainant is not a consumer under the  Consumer Protection Act.

      Therefore, complaint is not maintainable. Resultantly  the complaint is dismissed.

Order pronounced on :7.10.2016

 

 

• Copy of order be  given dasti free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                               (URMILA GUPTA)                   (R.S.  BAGRI)

  MEMBER                                             MEMBER                               PRESIDENT