PRESENT: ShriVinod Kumar father/A/R of complainant.

            In very brief case of the complainant is that his son took admission in two year week- endcoachingprogramme for JEE with the Opposite Party an education institution on payment of requisite fee. But the son of the complainant after 27 days was not satisfied with the teaching method and faculty of the opposite party. He did not want to pursue studies further with the opposite party. Therefore, the complainant approached and requested the Opposite Party to refund the fee paid.  But the Opposite Party refused to refund the fee. Hence the complaint for directions to the opposite party to refund the fee paid. 

                We have heardShriVinod Kumar father/A/R for the complainant and appraised material on record carefully. It is settled law that education is not a commodity and educational institutions are not providing any kind of service as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case law reported asMaharshiDayanand University Vs. SurjeetKaur 2010 (11) Supreme court Cases 159 and in special leave petition no.22532/12 titled P.T. Koshy&Anr Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust &Ors. decided on 09.08.12.

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

Copy of order be given to the complainant dasti and file be consigned to record.