Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/166

Rajesh Khattar - Complainant(s)

Versus

FIIT JEE Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Mar 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

                                                                                                           Date of institution:             18.03.2014   

Complaint Case. No.166/14                                                               Date of order:   02.03.2017                     

IN  MATTER OF

Rajesh Khattar, JG-II/242, Near C.R.P.F. Camp, VIkas Puri, New Delhi-110018.                                                                                                                                                       Complainant

VERSUS

Fiitjee Ltd., B-1/623, 2^nd Floor, District Centre Crossing, Metro Pillar NO.574, Janakpuri District Centre, Delhi-110058.                                                                              Opposite party-1

 

Fiitjee Ltd. (Head Office), 29-A, Fiitjee House, Near Hauz Khas Bas Terminal, Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya Vihar, Delhi-110016                                                                                Opposite party -2

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

 Briefly the case of the complainant is that his son Amit Khattar  took admission with the Opposite Parties an education institution for studying four year class room programme on payment of requisite fee. But now Amit Khattar does not want to peruse studies. The complainant approached and requested the Opposite Parties to refund the fee paid.  But the Opposite Parties refused to refund the same.  Hence, the present complaint for directions to the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.50,562/- of the fee charged.  

            After notice Opposite Parties appeared and filed joint reply admitting that the complainant took admission with the Opposite Party 1. They asserted that the complaint is not maintainable as complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as provided  under the Consumer Protection Act.  More over there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their part. They further asserted that as per the terms of contract the Opposite Parties are not liable to refund fee under any circumstance and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

            The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of Opposite Parties wherein he once again reiterated his stand taken in the complaint and controverted the stand taken by the Opposite Parties.  

The parties were asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit. The complainant in support of his case filed affidavit dated 08.08.2014, wherein he once again reiterated facts of the complaint. The complainant in support of his case relied upon copy of request for refund of fee dated 01.10.13, request for refund of fee dated 20.10.13, acknowledgement of fee dated 31.01.12, medical treatment record with reports from All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute. 

The Opposite Parties filed affidavit of shri Ashish Kumar Aggarwal, wherein he has asserted stand taken in the reply  and once again prayed for dismissal of the complaint. They relied upon resolution dated 21.09.2013 annexure-1, enrollment form annexure-2, acknowledgement of fee dated 31.01.2012 annexure-3 and acknowledgement of fee dated 31.08.2013 annexue-4. The parties have also filed written arguments.

We have heard the complainant in person and Learned. Counsel of the Opposite Parties at length and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.  We are of the opinion that the main controversy/ issue is “whether Mr. Amit Khattar, complainant, is consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and the opposite parties are service providers”?

These issues have been dealt in detail by 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 institutions 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 no.22532/12 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  took admission with opposite party no.1 an education Institution for four year classroom programme on payment of requisite fee.  The opposite parties are imparting education. Therefore as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble National Commission and  Hon’ble State Commission of Chandigarh consistantly 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 under the Consumer Protection Act-1986.  . Resultantly  the complaint is dismissed.

Order pronounced on : 02.03.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

                                    (URMILA GUPTA)                                      (R.S.  BAGRI)

                                         MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT