Delhi

West Delhi

CC/13/98

JATIN GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

High Wings Aviation - Opp.Party(s)

18 Apr 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

                                                                                                      Date of institution:  25.02.2013

Complaint Case. No.98/13                                                        Date of order:   18.04.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Jatin Gupta, B-27 Jeevan Park, C-1 Janak Puri, New Delhi-110059                                                                                                                                                                                            Complainant

VERSUS

High Wings Aviation, A-10 Second Floor Opposite Metro Pillar-654, Milap Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Opposite party

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

Briefly case of the complainant is that he took admission with the opposite party an education institution for course in aviation, hospitality, travel and tourism on payment of Rs.55,000/- as fee for four months. But the opposite party has not sufficient staff and proper classes are also not conducted. The complainant was also not satisfied with the teaching method of the opposite party. He left the institute after approximately five months. The complainant approached and requested the opposite party to refund Rs.55,000/- the fee paid to them. But they failed to refund Rs. 55,000/- despite assurance. Hence, the present complaint for directions to the opposite party to refund Rs.55,000/-, pay Rs.5,000/- for expenses on uniform, Rs.10,000 as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs.25,000 for loss of time and  litigation expenses.

                        After notice the opposite party appeared and filed reply admitting that the complainant took admission with the opposite party. They asserted that the academy has proper teaching faculty and they provide all modules as per the company standards to complete the course. The complainant has not paid complete fee. The complainant is not regular in attending the classes and he left the academy on his own. So there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their part.

                        The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite party wherein he once again reiterated his stand taken in the complaint and controverted the stand taken by the opposite party.

When the parties were asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit, the complainant in support of his case filed affidavit, wherein he once again reiterated facts of the complaint. The complainant in support of his case relied upon copies of receipts of fee dated 01.07.2011, 17.08.2011, 07.09.2011 and 03.10.2011, copy of brochure and copy of complaint lodged with police station, I.T.O. New Delhi. But despite availing several opportunities no evidence is produced by the opposite party. The opposite party was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 05.01.2016.

We have heard the complainant and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly. We are of the opinion that the main controversy/ issue between the parties is “whether Shri Jatin Gupta, complainant is a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and the opposite party is service provider”?

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 institutions 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 no.22532/12 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, inRevision 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 complaint. The complainant took admission with opposite party an education Institution for perusing course for sanitary inspector on payment of Rs.55,000/- as fee for four months.  The opposite party  is imparting education. Therefore as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commission of Chandigarh consistently education is not a commodity and the opposite party is not service provider and the complainant is not a consumer under the  Consumer Protection Act.

Therefore, complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.  Resultantly the complaint is dismissed.

 

Order pronounced on : 18.04.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                          (R.S.  BAGRI)

                 MEMBER                                                                                       PRESIDENT