Haryana

Ambala

CC/44/2012

BEG RAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

I.C.L GROUP OF COLLAGES - Opp.Party(s)

VIKAS ARORA

16 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                       Complaint Case No.:  44 of 2012

Date of Institution    : 06.02.2012

 Date of Decision      :    16.10.2015

 

Beg Raj son of Shri Ravinder Singh, R/o village Ganouli, Tehsil Naraingarh,  District Ambala.

……….Complainant

                                                                                                             Versus

1.       ICL Group of Colleges, village Sountli, (Shahzadpur), District Ambala throught its Principal (Branch B.Tech. Mechanical Engineering).

2.       Dr. Sanjeev Chadha, Managing Director I.C.L. Group of colleges, Village Sountli (Shahzadpur), District Ambala ( Branch B.Tech. Mechanical).

                                                ……Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:    SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Sh. Vikas Arora, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                   Ops exparte.

ORDER:

1.                 Present complaint has been filed by the complainant alleging therein that in pursuance of the guidance provided by the staff of OP institute, he took admission in B.Tech. Mechanical Engineering on 21.06.2010 in the institute of Op and deposited a sum of Rs.33,000/- on dated 21.06.2010 and Rs.4750/- on 25.06.2010 vide receipts No.2301 & 2491 respectively and also got deposited  his documents with the OP institute.  It is alleged that  the OP institute failed to complete the abovesaid course, so on 16.09.2010, the complainant moved an application to the OP No.1 Principal from withdrawing the course whereupon  OP No.1 endorsed reimbursement of admission fee of Rs.33750/- to the complainant  but despite various requests and visits, the same has not been reimbursed to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint for refund of the admission fee deposited by the complainant.  

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and filed reply admitting admission of the complainant in the said course and further submitted that the complainant was issued Roll number but he failed to attend the classes and even failed to deposit tuition fees etc.  It has been further urged  by the Op that the complainant never informed the institute about his absence from the classes and never filed any application for reimbursement of fees as alleged in the complaint. Hence, due to absence of complainant from the classes, he himself is responsible for the loss, if any, caused to him. In the end, prayer for dismissal of compliant has been made.

3.                In evidence, the counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, no evidence was led by the Ops rather they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.10.2015.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record very carefully. Before proceeding further, the foremost question arises for consideration before the Forum is “Whether the educational institutions are providing any service to the students?”

                   In P.T. Koshy & Anr. Versus Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. reported in 2012(3) CPC Pg. 615 (SC), Hon’ble Apex court after referring to judgment Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 has held that education is not commodity and Educational institutions are not providing any service. Therefore, in the matter of admission, fee etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency in service. Such matters cannot be entertained  by the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

Further in case titled as Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Parshad Sinha, reported in CPJ 2009(IV) Pg.34 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme court has  held that the examination fee paid by student is not a consideration for availment of service, but charge paid for privilege of participation in examination.  It has also been held that education Boards and universities are not ‘Service provider’ and the complaints against them are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. 

                   Further, in another case law titled as ICL Institute of Management and Technology Vs. Ranjit Singh & Anr. First Appeal No.166 of 2014 decided on 12.05.2014, our Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula has held that the complaint for refund of fees was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act before the Fora.

                   In view of the legal position enunciated above, present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, hence, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant shall have liberty to seek his grievance before the proper Forum or Civil Court, as per law.  Complainant can seek help for condonation of delay in accordance with law laid down in Luxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute reported in SCC 1995(3) Pg. 583. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced:          15.10.2015                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                (A.K. SARDANA)

                            PRESIDENT                 

 

 

                                                                                            Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                      MEMBER