Delhi

West Delhi

CC/17/246

JAGDISH PRASAD - Complainant(s)

Versus

FIIT JEE - Opp.Party(s)

01 May 2017

ORDER

PRESENT: Shri Jagdish Prasad complainant.

            In very brief case of the complainant is that his son took admission in two year class room programme for JEE with the Opposite Party an education institution on payment of requisite fee. But the son of the complainant after one year 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 heard 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 as Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 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.

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                          ( R.S.  BAGRI )

                 MEMBER                                                                                       PRESIDENT

                01.05.2017                                                                                       01.05.2017