Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/145

Jitender Sethi - Complainant(s)

Versus

FIIT JEE - Opp.Party(s)

19 Nov 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

                                                                                                             Date of institution:5.3.15

Complaint case No.145 /15                                                                                                     Date of Order:19.11.16

In the matter of

 

Sh. Jatinder  Sethi,

B1-B, MIG Flats,

Vatika Apartments,

Mayapuri, New Delhi-64.                                                                                                COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

FIITJEE Ltd.

Second Floor, B-1-623,

District Center Crossing,

Janak Puri, New Delhi-58.

Also at:

FIITJEE Ltd.,

Regd. Office),

House No.29A,  Kalu Sarai,

Sarvapriya Vihar,

New Delhi-16                                                                                                          OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT

 

            Brief relevant facts for disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant on 22.3.14 enrolled his son with Opposite Party in two year classroom programme for JEE  on payment of requisite fee.   The Opposite Party in parent teacher meeting held on 22.8.14 told that the ward of the complainant is not studying properly.  Therefore, son of the complainant  son was demoralized.  He  stopped attending classes w.e.f. 23.8.14.  Wife of the complainant requested the Opposite Party to refund balance fee vide letter dated 16.9.14 and reminder dated 18.11.14 .  But the Opposite Party failed to refund the balance  

2/-

amount.  The complainant instructed his bankers to stop payment of post dated cheques given to the Opposite Party.  But  instead of refunding the remaining amount the  Opposite Party presented a post dated cheque.   Which was returned unpaid on the ground payment stop. The the complainant had to pay Rs.300/- as penalty.  The Opposite Party on 16.12.14 through e-mail demanded amount of the bounced  cheque alongwith cost.  Hence, the present complaint for directions to the Opposite Party to return Rs.61642/- fee with 18% interest, Rs.30,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

            Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party filed reply while contesting the complaint and raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable before the District Forum as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharshi Dayanand University vs Surjet Kaur 2010 (11)SSC159.  Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that education is not a commodity and educational institutions are not providing any kind of service.  Therefore, there cannot be any question of deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply while denying the stand taken by the Opposite Party and reiterating his stand taken in the complaint.  

 

The Opposite Party also  filed application for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that this Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain cases pertaining to educational institutions and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  The complainant filed reply to the application asserting that the Opposite Party is giving coaching for preparing students for competitive exams and does not come under education institution. 

 

We have heard Sh. R.C. Sethi, AR/father in law of the complainant and   learned counsel for the Opposite Party and have gone through the material on record

3/-

carefully and thoroughly. We are of the opinion that the main controversy/ issue is “whether Gaurav Sethi , complainant’s son , is consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and the opposite party is service provider”?

      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 institutionals 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 no22532/12 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’s son Gaurav Sethi   took admission with opposite party educational Institution for  taking coaching for preparation of JEE entrance examination on payment of the requisite fee. He left the institution at his own.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party      The opposite party  is imparting education. Therefore, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court,  Hon’ble National Commission and  Hon’ble State Commission of Chandigarh time and again education is not a commodity and the opposite party is not service provider and the  complainant is not a consumer under the  Consumer

4/-

Protection Act. The complainant has also failed to show that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. 

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

Order pronounced on :19.11.2016

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

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                          (URMILA GUPTA)              (R.S.  BAGRI)

  MEMBER                                          MEMBER                            PRESIDENT