BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 7^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed by minor complainant through his natural mother against the OP seeking following reliefs:-

(a) Direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.5,42,300/- after deducting the fees towards the service rendered by OP and a sum of Rs.33,621/- for Samsung Tab by taking back the tab along with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of making of payments.

(b) Rs.70,000/- with 24% interest p.a. towards loss caused to the complainant and also compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the defective and deficiency in service and for involving in unfair trade practice which has caused serious mental and financial harassment.

(c) Grant such other further reliefs as are just even including the cost of this complaint.      

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant has paid Rs.5,42,300/- towards fee for two years course to the OP and also paid Rs.33,621/- towards cost of Samsung Tab for education purpose.  But, OP institution neither provided the course nor laptop. The complainant did attend classes during 15^th April 2019 to 13^th May 2019.  He has also attended the class on 3^rd June 2019.  But, his parents requests to refund of amount for cancellation of admission, which has been refused by the OP.  The complaint is within time.  The OP refused to refund the amount without any cause which is deficiency in service.

3. The complainant has furnished two addresses of OP.  But, notice sent to OP at Bengaluru has been served and notice to OP address at New Delhi not served. Therefore, the complainant got dispensed with notice to OP address at New Delhi.  Despite the sufficient opportunity granted to complainant, the complainant failed to file affidavit evidence.  No arguments is advanced on behalf of complainant.  Perused the records.

4. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

5. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point Nos.1 and 2:  In the negative.

      Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

6. Point Nos.1 and 2:  According to the allegations made in the complaint and documentary evidence, the complainant paid Rs.5,42,300/- towards two years course fee and Rs.33,621/- towards laptop.  According to the complainant, he attended the vacation classes from 15^th April 2019 to 13^th May 2019 and also on 3^rd June 2019.  It is the specific case of the complainant that the parents of the complainant requested for cancellation of admission.  The complainant by issuing legal notice dated 13.09.2019 called upon the OP to refund the paid amount with interest and compensation. The request was also made.  But, the OP had send E-mails dated 17.07.2019, 01.08.2019 and 16.08.2019 that request for refund of fee cannot be exceed in view of the terms and Rules and Regulations of the OP.
7.  The allegations made in the complaint clearly indicate that the complainant took admission in education institution of OP by paying the above amount and he did attend certain classes for certain period.
8.  The question arises, whether complainant is righting in saying the deficiency of service.  The question of deficiency of service arises whether service availed by the complainant falls within the provisions of C.P.Act.  We are of the opinion that the contractual obligation between student and education institution in getting education does not fall under the C.P.Act. When the C.P.Act is not applicable, the complainant is not right in saying there is deficiency of service on the part of OP and OP is liable to pay the reliefs.    
9. This reasoning of us is supported by following two decisions of Hon’ble National Commission:-

(1) The Hon’ble National Commission University of Petroleum and Energy Studies (UPES) Vs. Anuj Kanwal reported in 2020(3) CPR 84 (NC) wherein it is held that Educational matters to do not come within purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thus complaint is not maintainable.

(2) The Hon’ble National Commission in Manu Solanki and 8 others Vs. Vinayaka Mission University reported in 2020(1) CPR 773 NC wherein it is held that if an institution imparting education does not have a proper affiliation in imparting education.  It is not rendering any service.

10. In view of the above ratio of two decisions, the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.   
11. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion made in point Nos.1 and 2, the complaint requires to be dismissed.   We proceed to pass the following 

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. No costs.
3. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 7^th day of March, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-