BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 399 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 25.07.2019
Date of Decision : 17.11.2022.
Piyush Narula (aged about 19 years) son of Sh. Parveen Narula, resident of House No. 331/19, Guru Nanak Nagri, Gali No.2, Rania Gate, Sirsa. ……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Giani Zail Singh Campus College of Engineering and Technology, Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Technical University, Bathinda- 151001 through its Director.
2. Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Technical University, Dabwali Road, Bathinda- 151001 through its Principal.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA……………..MEMBER
Present: Sh. Ravinder Monga, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Surinder Sihag, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is a student having ambitions of bright future in life. The complainant did his 10+2 in Non Medical from DAV school, Sirsa and his family was having expectations for enrolling him in a better and reputed institution. He obtained 72% marks in 10+2 in CBSE Board, however, as per future plan the score was not as per expectation, so he put more labour for improving the percentage and repeated entire exam. Ultimately, the complainant scored 75.4% marks in Non Medical. That during above said period, complainant did online registration for securing his admission in reputed institution for B.Tech and applied in many Universities i.e. in State Govt. Universities as well as under the Central Govt. Universities. It is further averred that in a process for securing the seat the complainant contacted with the ops and inquired about the system of registration and also for securing the seat in their institution. The complainant received online instructions of ops and complainant secured his seat through online payment of Rs.2000/-. The ops after receiving the registration charges and considering high scoring of complainant advised to secure the seat being back-up of some another higher institution under Central Govt. expected by him. The ops made it clear that in case he got admission in Central Govt. Institution or any other Institution as per his choice, then they will refund the remaining amount received by them after deducting the registration charges.
3. It is further averred that complainant after due discussion with the parents and receiving his registration No. BTECHCSE-9172 agreed to secure his seat by depositing the amount of Rs.62,580/- and it was again assured by ops that either amount will be refunded or may be adjusted/ transferred in another institution. That complainant and his family members out of their hard earned money got deposited a sum of Rs.62,580/- on 26.07.2018 and branch of Bachelor of Technology (Computer Science and Engineering) was allotted to him as per the record of ops. Further he was shown to be admitted in Giani Zail Singh Campus College of Engineering and Technology, Bathinda and ops issued receipt in this regard with specific mentioning SESSION- ONLINE NEW ADMISSION MRSPTU JULY-AUGUST 2018. It is further averred that it was also made clear that in case of admission in some other institution, complainant will leave the seat without attending the college and hostel or institution. The complainant never visited to the college or hostel and never participated any educational activities for a single occasion. That complainant got his admission in Gurukul Kangri Vishwavidyalaya, Haridwar undertaken by the Central Govt. of India and he got reserved his seat there. That complainant made request to the ops for transferring/ refund of his amount of Rs.61,580/- and he was advised to wait for few days with the assurance that his case/ claim has been referred to the higher authorities for necessary approval etc. That complainant and his father for a number of occasion contacted with the ops but all the time matter was postponed with the lame excuses. However, ops failed to fulfill their commitment despite repeated requests made by complainant and his parents and finally complainant and his mother had given a written request for return of fee deposited on 26.07.2018. The ops with the intention to harass the parents of complainant put a condition to receive No Dues Certificates from all concerned departments of the Institution. That parents of complainant requested them that complainant never appeared in the college campus nor joined any educational activities but the ops in order to harass and humiliate them asked them to bring No Dues Certificate being mandatory, so that amount of Rs.61580/- could be refunded to them forthwith and after their efforts, they obtained No Dues Certificate and same was handed over to the ops. It is further averred that despite their assurances to return the entire amount, the complainant only received Rs.8000/- of security amount whereas he is legally entitled to receive entire amount of Rs.61,580/- from ops. The complainant after waiting for sufficient time moved written complaints to the higher and concerned authorities and a legal notice was also served upon the ops but ops instead of refunding the amount gave an evasive reply on 18.03.2019 and have caused unnecessary harassment to them. Hence, this complaint.
4. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding territorial jurisdiction, maintainability, no cause of action, suppression of material facts, estoppal and that as per decisions of Hon’ble National Commission, the education does not fall under the purview of Consumer Protection Act and complaint is liable to be dismissed summarily; that complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties i.e. Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Technical University and that op no.2 has been arrayed through Principal whereas University has no Principal and that ops have already refunded the amount of Rs.8000/- which was due as per refund rules of Govt. of Punjab, AICTE & UGC Notifications and provided the requisite service and complainant is not entitled to refund of any other amount.
5. On merits, while denying the fact that ops ever assured to refund the fee it is submitted that complainant had surrendered his seat on 06.09.2018. In the notifications of Govt. of Punjab No. 8/18/2018-1TE2/1219955/1 dated 25.04.2018 and AICTE rules regarding refund rules, it is clearly mentioned that in case the seat is surrendered within 7 days of end of online centralized counseling, the candidate is entitled to entire refund with Rs.1000/- deduction. The last date of 2nd centralized online counseling of course by IKGPTU was 25.06.2018, so the complainant was not eligible to get entire fee refunded except security deposit. The ops rightly refunded Rs.8000/- to the complainant. It is further submitted that rule for refund of fee after seat surrender issued by AICTE was published in the newspaper The Tribune on 25.08.2017. The complainant had not secured his seat by depositing the amount of Rs.62,580/- but had taken admission in the college by depositing the amount of Rs.62,580/-. The complainant had surrendered his seat on 6.9.2018 after the last date of admission i.e. 15.08.2018 and total 72 seats of B.Tech were lying vacant, hence the student was refunded only security amount. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
6. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A, copy of pass book Ex.C1, reply to legal notice Ex.C2 and copy of reply sent to Deputy Director (PGRC) AICTE Ex.C3, application form for refund of fee Ex.C4, application dated 6.9.2018 Ex.C5 and receipt/ challan of the amount of Rs.62,580/- deposited on 26.7.2018 as Ex.C6.
7. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Dr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Registrar of ops Ex.RW1/A, reply to legal notice Ex.R2, refund rules Ex.R3, copy of reply to legal notice sent to Deputy Director (PGRC) AICTE Ex.R4, notification of Government of Punjab dated 25.04.2018 Ex.R5, public notice Ex.R6, notification of Government of India Ex.R7 and circular Ex.R8.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
9. In this case, the first and foremost issue is that whether this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint, because the OPs have raised objection that complainant is not a consumer and this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint. In this case, the complainant is seeking refund of the admission fee deposited with the ops for admission in B.Tech. Hence, it is to be seen whether complaint is maintainable against the education institution or not. The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the ops which is an educational institution imparting education. The pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble NCDRC in cases P.T. Koshy & Anr. vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC); Anupama College of Engineering vs. Gulshan Kumar and Ors. Civil Appeal Nos. 17802 and 17803 of 2017 decided on 30.10.2017; Maharishi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur (2010) 11 SCC 159; Manu Solanki and others vs. Vinayak Mission University I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC); Rajendra Kumar Gupta vs. Swarup Public School 2021 (1) CPJ (NC) 368 are relevant regarding issue whether the complaint against the educational institution can be entertained by the consumer commission or not. The perusal of above judgments clearly goes to show that it has been held in said judgments that education is not commodity and service imparting education institution cannot be held to be service provider and student cannot be said to be a consumer. Therefore, consumer commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter pertaining to the deficiency of service in education. In case titled as Anupama College of Engineering vs. Gulshan Kumar and ors. CA No. 17802 of 2017 decided on 30.10.2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“Learned counsel for the appellant has placed the decision of this Court in Maharishi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur (2010) 11 SCC 159. The aforesaid judgment was followed by this Court in SLP (C) No. 22532/2021 titled as P.T. Koshy & Anr. vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. The order reads as follows:
“In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharishi 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.”
10. Considering the ratio of law laid down in the above referred judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency in service and such matters cannot be decided by the Consumer Commission. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has contended that in view of judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Frankfinn Institute of Air Houstess Training and anr. Versus Aashima Jarial 2019 (2) CPJ 255 decided on 4.4.2019, the complaint regarding refund of fee is maintainable in the Consumer Commission. However, we found no substance in the contention of learned counsel for complainant because in latest judgment in case titled as Rajendra Kumar Gupta vs. Dr. Virendra Swarup Public School & Anr. FA No. 852 of 2016 decided on 2.2.2021 the Hon’ble National Commission has held that “It is settled law, as stated in the aforementioned precedents set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Commission, that Educational Institutions do not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.” Therefore, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter involved in the present complaint and present complaint is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
11. In view of foregoing discussion, reasons and well settled legal position regarding dispute involved in this complaint, the present complaint is dismissed but with no order as to costs. However, complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate court of law for redressal of his grievance, as per law, if so advised. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced : Member Member President,
Dated: 17.11.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
