Punjab

StateCommission

FA/417/2013

Desh Bhagat College and another - Complainant(s)

Versus

Harpreet Kaur and others. - Opp.Party(s)

Kumar vishav Aggarwal

01 Apr 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                                           PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.417 of 2013

 

                                                          Date of Institution:11.04.2013  

                                                          Date of Decision : 1.04.2015

 

1.      Desh Bhagat College of Education through its Principal Smt. Surjeet       Patehja, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh  District       Fatehgarh Sahib

2.      Desh Bhagat College of Education through its Chairman,        Mandi           Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh District Fatehgarh          Sahib.

 

                                       …..Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2                               

                   Versus

 

1,      Harpreet Kaur d/o Sh. Amrit Singh R/o Ward No.3, Arjunvilla, Krishna Colony, Amloh District Fatehgarh Sahib.

2.      Malkit Singh S/o Sh. Sher Singh R/o VPO Ajnoda Kalan Tehsil         Nabha District Patiala.

 

                                                          ….Respondents/Complainants

 

3.      Punjabi University Patiala through its Vice Chancellor Dr.         Jaspal        Singh University Campus Patiala.

 

 

                             ….. Performa Respondent /Opposite party No.3

 

         

First Appeal against order dated 24.01.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.

          Present:-

 

          For the appellant                                       : None

          For the respondent No.1 and 2     : Sh.Balbir Singh Saini,                                                                     Advocate

          For the respondent No.3                : Sh.Vikrant Sharma,                                                                         Advocate

 

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

                            

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                                     

           The appellants (the OP No.1 and 2 in the complaint) have directed this appeal against the respondents of this appeal (the complainant no.1 and 2 in the complaint), respondent no.3 of this appeal (the OP No.3 in the complaint), challenging the order dated 24.01.2013 of District Forum Fatehgarh Sahib, accepting the complaint of the complainant and directing OP No.1 and 2 to refund the amount of Rs.9,000/- to the complainant Harpreet Kaur and Rs.9000/- to the complainant Malkit Singh with 9% interest. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by OP No.1 and 2 the present appellants.

2.      The complainants have filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the allegations that complainant took admission in Desh Bhagat College of Education, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib in B.Ed branch, as per the requirements of Punjabi University Patiala. The complainants hailed from middle class and they deposited the fee earned  with hard-earned or toil money of their parents. The OPs took excess fee of Rs.9,000/- in the year 2010 from each of the complainant. The fee structure was to be followed as per the Punjabi University Patiala. The fee prescribed in private colleges was Rs.40,000/- as per notification of the Punjab Government. The complainants have filed the present complaint directing the OPs  to refund the excess fee charged from them  along with interest besides compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant.

3.      Upon notice, OP No.1 and 2 filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainants. The complaint was contested on preliminary objections  that it is not legally maintainable. The complainants have not come to the Forum with clean hands. The fee has been charged from the complainants as per  fee structure approved by Self Financed B.ED Colleges Associations Punjab, as per Civil Writ Petition No.10091 of 2009. The fee schedule was displayed on web side of Self Financed B.ED Colleges Associations Punjab on the basis of which, the complainants took admission. OP No.1 filed a special leave to Appeal (Civil) No.13472/2012 before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the judgment and order dated 22.02.2012 in RP No.3744/2011 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi, wherein the order of the National Commission has been stayed. The Apex Court has conclusively decided the matter that education is not a commodity and there could be no relationship of the consumer and the service provider in educational matters. The OPs contested the complaint of the complainant on the above-referred grounds. The OPs denied the complainants, being a consumer and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainants tendered in evidence the affidavit of complaint Harpreet Kaur Ex.CW-1, copy of notice Ex.C-1, copy of memo no.12/11/04-6 C1, copy of receipt for payment of Rs.15000/- has been deposited by the complainant to OP college Ex.CW-3, copy of legal notice Ex.C-4, postal receipts Ex.C-5. As against it, the opposite parties tendered in evidence  affidavit  Surjeet Kaur, Principal of Desh Bhagat College of Education, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh , District Fatehgarh Sahib Ex.RW-1/A, copy of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Ex.R-1, copy of receipt of tutition fee and other charges Ex.R-2, copy of legal notice Ex.R-3, reply to legal notice Ex.R-4, copy of postal receipt Ex.R-5, copy of order of High Court Ex.R-6. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib, accepted the complaint of the complainant directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.9000/- to each of the complainants along with interest 6%  p.a.. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Fatehgarh Sahib dated 24.01.2013, the instant appeal has been preferred against the same by OP No.1 and 2 now appellants.

5.      We have heard Ld.Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The respective pleadings of  the parties have been considered by us on the record. Similarly, the affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW-1 of Harpreet Kaur has also been considered by us. The document Ex.C-1 is copy of notice  and Ex.C-2 is memo No.12/11/04-6C1/ addressed by Special Secretary Higher Education to Director Education Department Chandigarh to the effect that out of the fee, Rs.10750/- would taken as tuition fee annually, tuition fee and additional staff equity fund would be included in it and the total fee is of Rs.40,000/- The receipt Ex.CW-3 is also on the record regarding the deposit of fee by the complainant. Notice is Ex.C-4 as sent by counsel for the complainant to OPs and Ex.CW-5 is postal receipts to this effect on the record. To counter it, the affidavit of Surjeet Kaur, Principal of Desh Bhagat College of Education, Mandi Gobindgarh Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib is Ex.RW-1/A on the record, wherein she has stated that fee charged from the complainant, as per structure approved by Federation of Self Financed B.ED Colleges Association of Punjab as per Civil Writ Petition No.10091 of 2009. Fee schedule was displayed on the web site of Federation Self Financed B.ED Colleges Association Punjab. It is further averred in the affidavit that the order of the National Commission has been stayed by the Apex Court in special leave to Appeal No.13472/2012. The order of the National Commission dated 20.02.2012 in Revision Petition No.3744/2011 has been stayed. The Apex Court has held that education is not commodity and there could be no relationship between the consumer and the service provider between the parties. Ex.R-1 is copy of order of the Apex Court  in case Chairman Desh Bhagat Dental College. Vs… Archita Vedi, wherein the Apex Court has held that education institutions imparting education is not service provider and Consumer Forum does not have jurisdiction to deal with education institutions. Ex.R-2 is receipt of tuition fee and other charges, Ex.R-3 is legal notice , Ex.R-4 is reply to legal notice, Ex.R-5 is postal receipt and Ex.R-6 is writ petition No.10091  of High Court has been considered by us.

6.      We find that the High Court held in Ex.R-6 writ petition No.10091 of 2009 decided on First July 2010 that States do not have the authority to conduct entrance examination test in respect of self financed/unaided colleges. Right to conduct the common entrance test inheres in them on the strength of the Government Notification dated 19th May 2009. It is accordingly, stated that in view of the authorization of State Government, the University is entitled to conduct the entrance test for selection of students for admission in BEd Course in respect of all colleges affiliated with Universities specified in the above notification.

7.      We find that the dispute between the parties is basically with regard to the refund of the admission fee in this case. The matter has been settled by Apex Court in case titled as "P.T Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors." 2012(3) CPC 615 (SC) that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter of educational institutions like admission fee and there is no relationship of the consumer and the service provider because education is not a commodity." Even Apex Court has observed in Ex.R-1 in this case in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur reported in 2010 (II) SCC 159 the Apex Court that educational institutions cannot be dealt with by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The educational institutions imparting education is not providing service  and they are not service provider to be covered under the Consumer Protection Act.

8.      Consequently, we find that District Forum has overlooked this important aspect of the matter. The remedy for the complainants are to apply before competent court of law for redressal of their grievance and not the Consumer Forum.

9.      As a result of our above discussion, the order of the District Forum dated 24.01.2013 is not sustainable and same is ordered to be set aside in this appeal. The appeal of the appellant is accepted by setting aside the order of the District Forum Fatehgarh Sahib dated 21.01.2013. The complaint of the complainant stands dismissed by leaving the complainant to agitate their matter before the competent  Forum in accordance with the law.

10.    The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.11,520/- at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the appellants by way of cross cheque/demand draft after 45 days from receipt of copy of this order.

11.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 26.03.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

12.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                      PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                              (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                          MEMBER

 

April 1,  2015.                                                             

(ravi)