Haryana

Ambala

CC/165/2013

RAM KISHORI - Complainant(s)

Versus

E-MAX INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL - Opp.Party(s)

SUSHIL KUMAR

28 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                             Complaint Case No.:  165 of 2013

     Date of Institution   :  02.07.2013   

      Date of Decision        :    28.08.2015

 

 

Ram Kishore aged about 11 years  minor son of Shri Raj Kishore son of Shri Parsana Ram, resident of village Saha, Teshil Barara, District Ambala through  his father being next friend Shri Raj Kishore.

                                                                              ……….Complainant

                                                                                  Versus

E. Max International School, Badhauli, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala through its Principal.

                                                                                                                                                                     ……Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:    SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                  

Present:       Sh. Sushil Kumar, Adv. for complainant.

                   Ops exparte.

ORDER

1.                 Present complaint has been filed by Sh. Raj Kishore on behalf of his minor son Ram Kishore - stated to be 11 years, alleging therein that   complainant is studying in 5^th class with the OP school during the session 2012-13 and fee has already deposited upto September, 2012.  It has been alleged by the complainant that in school diary of student, there were many mistakes of spelling & sentences but there was no any pointing out  by the school teachers in this regard. So, father of the student complained about this to Class Teacher and therefore, teachers started keeping grudge & torturing the student.  Moreover, under the influence of Class Teacher and the Management, complainant’s son was not allowed to appear in annual exams held in 2013 inspite of various requests.   It has been further alleged that due to this act of the OP, precious one year of the complainant’s son  has ruined because of the mistakes of the OP  school which itself is a grave deficiency  in service on the part of OP and thereby causing mental tension, harassment and agony to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause.

2.                OP did not bother to appear despite registered notice.  As such, he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.10.2013.

3.                In evidence, the counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and gone through the record very carefully. Before proceeding further, the foremost question arises for consideration before the Forum is “Whether the educational institutions are providing any service to the students?”

                   In P.T. Koshy & Anr. Versus Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. 2012(3) CPC 615 (SC), Hon’ble Apex court after referring to judgment Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 has held that education is not commodity and Education institutions are not providing any service. Therefore, in the matter of admission, fee etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency in service. Such matters cannot be entertained  by the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

Further in case titled as Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Parshad Sinha, reported in CPJ 2009(IV) Pg.34 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme court has  held that the examination fee paid by student is not a consideration for availment of service, but charge paid for privilege of participation in examination.  It has also been held that education Boards and universities are not ‘Service provider’ and the complaints against them are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. 

                   Further,  in another case law titled as ICL Institute of Management and Technology Vs. Ranjit Singh & Anr. First Appeal No.166 of 2014 decided on 12.05.2014 by our Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula has held that the complaint for refund of fees was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act before the Fora.

                   In view of the legal position enunciated above, present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, hence, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant shall have liberty to seek his grievance before the proper Forum or Civil Court, as per law.  Complainant can seek help for condonation of delay in accordance with law laid down in Luxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute reported in SCC 1995(3) Pg. 583. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced:28/08/2015           

         

                                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                                        (A.K. SARDANA)

                                                                                                                PRESIDENT

                                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                                        (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                                     MEMBER