Delhi

West Delhi

CC/13/520

JUPNIT KAUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

GURU GOBIND SINGH UNIVERSITY - Opp.Party(s)

21 Sep 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          21.8.13     

Case. No.520 /13                                                                                                                              Date of order:                       21.9.16

 

 In the matter of

 

Jupnit Kaur,

B-1/511, Janak Puri

New Delhi-58.                                                                                   COMPLAINANT

 

 

VERSUS

 

The Registrar,

Guru Gobind Singh Inderprastha University,

Sector 16C, Dwarka,

New Delhi-75.                                                                                   OPPOSITE PARTY

 

The Principal,

Bharti Vidhyapeeth College of Engineering,

A-4, Paschim Vihar, Rohtak Road,

New Delhi-63.                                                                                   OPPOSITE PARTY(PERFORMA)

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT

 

Briefly stated  the facts  of the present  complaint are that the complainant took admission with Bharti Vidhyapeeth College of Engineeing Opposite Party-2  affiliated with Guru Gobind Singh University Opposite Party-1  for persuing degree in  B.Tech. on payment of requisite fee on 18.7.09.      Later on she got admission in Delhi College of Engineering and requested the Opposite Parties to refund the fee.  But the Opposite Parties failed to refund the fee.   Hence, the present complaint for direction to  Opposite Parties    to refund the fee received by them and pay compensation on account of mental harassment.

After notice Opposite Parties  appeared and filed reply .  The Opposite Party-1 admitted that the complainant was admitted in B.Tech Course and deposited fee on 18.7.09 during first counseling.  She was provisionally admitted to Bhartiya Vidhyapeeth College of Engineering (Opposite Party-2).  As per policy of Opposite Party-1 given in the brochure  the students could withdraw their admission on making written request in a prescribed performa.   The application for withdrawal of admission should be submitted within the time frame given by the Opposite Party-2.   The complainant applied for withdrawal of admission from Opposite Party-2 after lapse of the period provided in the brochure.  The application was also  not in the prescribed performa.  The necessary conditions were also  not adhered

-2-

  by her.   Therefore, there is no negligence and deficiency  of service on the part of the Opposite Parties and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The Opposite Party-2 in  reply to the complaint asserted that the complainant has not followed the rules and procedure of the admission  as notified by the Opposite Party-1.   The Opposite Party-2 is affiliated with Opposite Party-1 and the procedure of admission and cancellation/withdrawl of admission is  governed by the Opposite Party-1.    Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for refund of fee and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

                                The complainant  filed separate  rejoinders to the replies of the Opposite Party-1 and Opposite Party-2 reiterating her stand taken in the complaint and controverting the stand of the Opposite Parties taken in their respective replies. 

                                When the parties were asked to lead their evidence by way of affidavit, the complainant filed affidavit dated26.3.14 wherein she once again reiterated her  stand taken in the complaint and  rejoinders. The complainant in support of her version filed copy of   public notice of  AICTE , letters  dated 29.1209 and  22.2.10 for refund of fee, copy of receipt  of fee NO.21/745  dated 18.7.09 , copy of  registration form,  letter dated 1.12.09, application dated 25.8.09, copy of government policy, letter dated 5.1.10 of Opposite Party-2 and letter dated 30.4.10  refusal to refund the  fee .  The Opposite Party-1 filed affidavit of Dr. Natin Malik, Joint Registrar Dated 31.3.14 reiterating their stand taken in the reply and  asserted that due to negligence of the complainant  the other deserving students suffered loss.  The Opposite Party-2 also  filed (documents alongwith their reply to support their version) copy of letter dated 26.8.09, copy of letter dated 29.1209, copy of reply by principal of  Opposite Party-2, copy of public notice of  AICTE, copy of letters dated 18.4.11 and 5.5.11, copy of brochure, copy of counter affidavit by Opposite Party-2, copy of order dated 16.6.11, copy of reply dated 2.2.12 submitted  in  Hon’ble State Commission, copies of judgments of Hon’ble State Commission dated 21.2.13, and Hon’ble  National Commission dated  26.7.13.   

                  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant filed complaint No.384/10 before this forum against  the Opposite Party-2 only.  .  The Forum dismissed the complaint with observations that Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University should have been impleaded as necessary party.   The complainant filed appeal before Hon’ble State Commission against the order of this Forum wherein the Hon’ble State Commission agreed with the findings of this Forum.   The complainant filed  revision petition against the order of Hon’ble State Commission before the Hon’ble  National Commission wherein the Hon’ble National Commission dismissed the revision petition giving liberty to the petitioner to file case against Guru Gobind Singh University Opposite Pary-1 and  implead  Bharti Vidhyapeeth College of Engingineering Opposite Party-2  as performa party.   It is also worthwhile to mention here  that the Hon’ble National  Commission made observation that the  petitioner/complainant can seek help for limitation from the reported case of “Laxmi Engineering Works Vs  P.S.G Industrial Institute [(1995) 3SCC583]”. Hence the present complaint with above averments. 

 

-3-

We have heard parties and appraised material on record carefully.  We are of the opinion  that the main controversy/issue involved is “whether  Jupnit Kaur, complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and opposite parties are service providers”? 

      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 took admission with opposite parties for persuing  engineering course with opposite Parties  .  The opposite parties  are  giving 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 parties are not service providers and the  student/complainant  is not a consumer under the  Consumer Protection Act.      Therefore, complaint is not maintainable. Resultantly  the complaint is dismissed.

Order pronounced on :21.9.16

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.

Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

(URMILA GUPTA)                                                                                  (R.S.  BAGRI)     

MEMBER                                                                                                  PRESIDENT