Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he was admitted for 5 years integrated BBA & MBA course in pharmaceutical management named and styled as Integrated Pharmaceutical Management Course which was for 10 semesters including mandatory practical training modules etc. being selected by the op authority and accordingly after paying all course fees, complainant was admitted knowing about the fee structure, payable for the said course and subsequently complainant no.2 was directed to attend classes and course from July, 2011.

          At the time of admission op represented to the complainant that the said course is copyrighted course being a unique course with enormous professional prospects and that the said course is copyrighted to one Dr. S.N. Banerjee, who shared the same exclusively with the op university alone and further that Dr. S.N. Banerjee was the principal of the said faculty and considering that fact, complainant opted for the said course but later it was found that S.N. Banerjee already shifted to another university situated in Bangalore and that there was no specific contract to the extent that the said course was to be exclusively taught at the op university.

          But after admission it was found that op/university was very casual in operating education and class schedule was only for namesake, no book and journal were supplied but huge cost was charged from the complainant at the time of admission and not even provided till the end of the semester for which they were prescribed.  After the 4^th semester examination, almost 70 odd days the results was not published.  Complainant amongst other students of the said batch, being perplexed wrote a letter to the op university and informed about the same since such delay in publication of examination results which were unexpected.  But op did not respond.  Thereafter complainant wrote a letter to Jt. Secretary, UGC, wherefrom they came to learn that the university has carrying the course illegally and after receipt of that reply from UGC, complainant was very much shocked and perplexed complainant no.2 immediately applied the other university for the said course.  But somehow he got admission in the 4^th semester at Scintilla Academy for Applied Sciences Education & Research and is now pursuing his further studies in the said stream art the said university in Bangalore.

          No doubt op having no recognition of rendering the said course caused monetary loss to the complainant and practically complainant sustained not only monetary loss but mental pain and agony for adopting unfair practice in educational institution and accordingly complainant has prayed for redressal for adopting unfair practice and for not rendering service.

          On the other hand op nos.2 & 3by filing written statement have submitted that no doubt complainant was selected for admission in the EIILM University, Jorethang, Sikkim being op no.1 the said information was given to the complainant by a letter dated 18.06.2011 issued on behalf of op and op nos. 2 & 3 are the officials  of the Kolkata Campus being a separatelegal entity imparting educational course as BBA & MBA in pharmaceutical management for 5 years as designed by Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University (EIILM), Jorethang, Namchi, Sikkim.  As such the concerned students got themselves admitted in the EIILMon their own decision and the course was divided into 10 semesters which included mandatory practical training modules as prescribed by the said EIILM University of Sikkim.

          Complainant no.2 was informed by a letter on 18.06.2011 that he has been selected for admission in the programme of his choice under the said University at Sikkim and to pay the requisite fees etc.  Later on by another letter dated 26.10.2011 the op no.1 sent the fees structure but complainant shall not have to pay and practically that was paid on behalf of complainant no.2 by his father and complainant no.2 was attended the class on 11.09.2011 and complainant also made payment for admission and studying the course under the EIILM University at Sikkim.  Many other students appeared in the 4^th semester, but even after passing of more than 70 days the result was not published by the said University for which op nos. 2 & 3 are not responsible.

          No doubt complainant no.2 communicated the situation to the UGC through a letter dated 16.09.2013 and thereafter voluntarily opted for Scintilla Academy for Applied Science Education and Research and as because complainant no.2 never followed well of the direction of the institution’s terms and conditions and complainants are not entitled to get return/refund of their fees and other payments made by them for admission and prospectus for their admission.  But the allegation against op nos. 2 & 3 are completely fabricated and false and practically complainant no.2 as per his own choice shifted to some other educational institution at Bangalore without the permission of the ops and practically op nos. 2 & 3 issued NOC as per the desire of the complainant no.2.  So, op nos. 2 & 3 are no way liable for payment of fees etc. because op nos. 2 & 3 are nothing but conducting classes of the students who are admitted in the said University at Sikkim and the said educational institution has always been performed to the best interest of the students and there is no deficiency on the part of the op nos. 2 & 3 for which the present complaint should be dismissed.

          On the other hand op no.1 by filing written statement submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable in view of the fact that complainant nos. 1 & 2 are not the consumer and as per settled principal of law a candidate who appears for education cannot be regarded as a person who had hired or availed the services of the University or Board for consideration and further submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court also came to a conclusion that students are not consumer to any institution.  So, the present complaint is not maintainable.  It is further submitted that op no.1 is the private University so the allegation of the complainant is completely false and further submitted that op no.1 granted authorization for conducting course and op no.1 never directly dealt with the students with the EIILM University including complainant no.2 and op no.1 University is no manner responsible for publication of the result of the complainant.  But the op nos. 2 & 3 jointly and severally are responsible for publication of the result and course fees and students were not furnished to op no.1.  Therefore, op no.1 was unable to declare the result of the complainant and it is specifically mentioned that op no.1 is the recognized University empowered award degrees u/s 22 of UGC 1956 and for the above reason the present complaint should be dismissed.

Decision with reasons

          On proper consideration of the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also considering the copy of writ petition no. 5675 (W) of 2014 and its order dated 28.02.2014 it is found that 65 students including complainant no.2 filed the said Writ Petition against the present ops and in the said Writ Petition Hon’ble Justice Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J. directed the university authority to issue makrsheet and degree certificate in favour of 397 students of 3^rd and 4^th semester examination of MBA and marksheet of 8 students should be corrected and supplied to them within two weeks from date and the university authorities are entitled to claim any unpaid amount of money which is required to be paid by the students and the students would be obliged to pay the same and this order was passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said Writ Petition on 28.02.2014.  Thereafter EIILM University issued marksheet and directed the EIILM op, Kolkata to supply the same and have also sent letter of such of the students that marksheet was issued and in the said DiptaranjanLahiri the complainant no.2’s name is also found in sl. No. 32 and fact remains marksheet was issued and op nos. 2 & 3 reported the complainant no.2 to receive it but complainant did not receive it. 

Truth is that complainant’s allegation is that the result has not been published it is a fake institution that WP was filed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court decided and result has been published.  Then the dispute in respect of which the complainant has filed this complaint as already decided by competent highest Forum of this state that Hon’ble High Court.  So, in this regard there is no scope on the part of the complainant to raise any objection and Forum is not in a position to decide the matter when that has already been decided by the Hon’ble High Court.  Now the question is whether the present complaint is maintainable against this present ops.  In this regard we have gathered that no doubt complainant paid huge amount for his admission and truth is that complainant completed 2^nd and 4^th semester and result of the 4^th semester has already been published and complainant up to the stage paid such amount and against that he has got his certificate and mark sheet up to 2^nd and 4^th semester.

          So, under any circumstances, negligence and deficiency on the part of the ops is not at all proved.  But anyhow we have also considered whether the present complaint is tenable against the ops and in this regard we have gathered that complainant was given lesson by the institute with recognition no doubt in such circumstances it is to be looked into whether the complainant is a consumer of op or not.  It is an order of the Hon’ble National Commission that education is not a commodity and educational institution are not service provider and truth is that in this case most legal question is whether educational institution is service provider or where educational institution are given of service provider or not and further question whether admission fees shall be treated for hiring service from the institution? And in this regard we have relied upon the ruling reported in 2011 (II) CSS 159 and also the ruling reported in SCP (Civil) 22532/12 it is ordered by Hon’ble Supreme Court wherefrom we have gathered that educational institution is not a commodity and education is not providing service and therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the op and in this regard the judgement passed 2014 II ICC 940 by NC it is found that NC has also come to a conclusion that educational institution are not counted as service provider and at the same time considering both the judgements including the present fact and circumstances we are convinced to hold that present ops are educational institution but they are not the service provider and in the matter there cannot be a question of deficiency of service and in view of the above finding the provision of C.P. Act 1986 is not tenable because education is not a commodity for which complainants are not consumers and in view of the above finding and also relying upon the above ruling as referred we are inclined to hold that such a complaint cannot be entertained by this Forum under the CP Act as complainants are not consumer under the op.

Accordingly the complaint fails.

Hence, it is

ORDERED

 That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against the ops but without any cost.