DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW

CASE No.246 of 2014

       Avinash Chaudhary,

       S/o Sri Om Prakash,

       R/o 2176, Rajajipuram, 

       Lucknow.

                                                                    ……Complainant

Versus

                  1. Goutam Buddh Technical University,

                     Office- Tagore Marg, Lucknow-226007.

                    Through its Vice Chancellor.

                  2.  Bundelkhand Institute of Engineering & Technology,

                     Kanpur-Gwalior Highway, N.H.-25, Jhansi.

                     Through its Director.

                                                                               .......Opp. Parties

Present:-

Sri Vijai Varma, President.

Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.

Sri Rajarshi Shukla, Member.

JUDGMENT

This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs for refund of Rs.73,450.00 and for compensation etc.

          The case in brief of the Complainant is that he had qualified entrance examination of U.P.S.E.E. and got a seat for Electrical Engineering in Bundelkhand Institute of Engineering and Technology, Jhansi and deposited Rs.73,450.00 excluding the hostel fee of Rs.8,500.00 for admission on 17.08.2012 but due to illness he could not attend the classes and therefore asked the OPs to refund the fee but the OP No.2 refunded only Rs.5,000.00 and Rs.73,450.00 was not refunded to the Complainant, hence this complaint for refund of fees etc.

          The OP No.1 and 2 have filed the WS. OP No.2 has refuted the contention of the Complainant in their WS.

-2-

          As per the judgment of the Hon’ble NCDRC in III (2014) CPJ 120 (NC) Regional Institute of Cooperative Management Vs Naveen Kumar Chaudhary & others wherein it has been held that the educational institutions are not the service providers and the students did not come within the purview of the definition of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. In P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs Ellen Charitable Trust and Ors. it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “In Maharshi Dayanand University Vs Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”

          From the facts of the aforesaid case, it is clear that this case relates to the refund of fees and as per the aforesaid judgments it is abundantly clear that the OPs being educational institutions, are not service provider in a case involving refund of fees etc. and therefore this complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act in this Forum. Therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed. However, the Complainant can seek remedy before the appropriate Forum or Civil Court as per law.

ORDER

          The complaint is dismissed.

The parties to bear their own costs.

(Rajarshi Shukla)     (Anju Awasthy)                   (Vijai Varma)

       Member                     Member                    President   

Dated:     3 June, 2015