DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001.
Consumer Complaint No.166 of 2015 Date of Institution: 06.04.2015 Date of Decision: 28.09.2015
Divya Dutt s/o Sh. Devender Dutt, R/o H.No.1579/3, Gali No.11, Rajiv Nagar, Gurgaon, Haryana.
……Complainant.
Versus
- Director, Global Institute of Technology & Management, Farrukh Nagar, Gurgaon-122506.
- Aruna Yadav, Head Admissions & Career Counselling, Global Institute of Technology & Management, Farrukh Nagar, Gurgaon
..Oppositeparties
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER
SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. R.S.Bhardwaj, Adv for the complainant.
Sh. Surinder Singh, Adv for the OP.
ORDER SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The complainant has alleged that she had applied for admission in B. Tech CSC 4 Years Degree Course for the academic session 2014-15 in the institute of the opposite parties and deposited fee of Rs.69,000/- vide Receipt No.131 dated 08.07.2014 through Cheque No.90761 drawn on State Bank of Travencor, Maruti Udyog Vihar, Branch Gurgaon in favour of institute. After a week or so the complainant had been compelled by unavoidable circumstances to leave the institute and consequently, she informed the opposite parties to this effect. She accordingly requested the opposite parties to refund the fee of Rs.69,000/-. Initially, opposite parties assured to refund the fee but later on refused to accede to her request. She also got served a legal notice but of no use. Thus, there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. She prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund fee of Rs.69,000/- with interest @ 24 % p.a. from the date of deposit till realization. She also sought compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11000/-. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the documents referred above.
2 Opposite parties instead of filing written reply has filed an application for dismissal of complaint for want of jurisdiction in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case M.D.U. Vs Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC-159 as well as P.T.Koshy & Anr Vs Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors 2012(3) CPC 615 (SC)
3 Learned counsel for the complainant has also reply to the application moved by the opposite parties by alleging therein that the Hon’le Forum has got the jurisdiction in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case Nitish Dhameja Vs Punjab University 2012 (2) CPJ 188, Swami Vivekanand Institute of Engineering & Technology Vs Jatin Singla 2014(1) CPJ 88 (Punjab SCDRC) (CN) and Ganpati College of Engineering for Girls V Vijeta 2012 92) CPJ 569 (NCDRC).
4 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on file carefully. However, education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fee etc, there cannot be a question of deficiency of service in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled P.T.Koshy & Anr Versus Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors 2012(3) CPC 615 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held
“that in view of the judgment of this Court in Maharashi Dayanand University Vs Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 = 2010(2)CPC 696 SC 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, fee etc, there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The above law is followed by our Hon’ble State Commission in First Appeal No.360 of 2013 titled as Anupama College of Engineering Vs Gulshan Kumr and others decided on 12.07.2013 as well as in case Lovely Professional University Vs Mohit Soni IV(2013) CPJ 133 (Har)
5 Consequently, in view of the facts and circumstances discussed above and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the complainant is not a Consumer nor the OP-Institute is a Service Provider to the complainant-student. Thus, this complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, it is dismissed, however, with liberty to file the same on same cause of action before competent Court of jurisdiction.
Copy of the Order be sent to the complainant, free of costs.
Pronounced in open court.
Dated: 28.09.2015 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
Member Member
