Haryana

Karnal

342/2010

Aarushi Singhal D/o S.C. Singhal - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICFAI Business School - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. G.P. Singh

30 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.     

                                                                Complaint No. 342 of 2010

                                                               Date of instt.: 10.05.2010

                                                                Date of decision:31 .03.2016

 

Aarushi Singhal daughter of  Sh.S.C.Singhalc/o Singla Hospital, 37/13, Extension Urban Estate, Karnal.

.                                              ……..Complainant. .

                                      Vs.

1.ICFAI Business School, through its Chairman/Managing Director, IBS Headquarters, 13/17, Nagarjuna Hills, Panjagutta, Hyuderabad 500 082.

 

2.The Registrar/Admission Officer, Admission Committee, IBS Headquarters 13/17, Nagarjuna Hills Panjagutta, Hyderabad 500 082.

 

3.IFEN, SCO- 144, Sector 13, Urban Estate, Karnal through its proprietor Mahender Virmani.

                                                                           ……… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.            

                    Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-       Sh.G.P.Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh.Subodh Gupta Advocate for the Opposite Party no.2.

                    Opposite Parties no.1 and 3 exparte.

ORDER:           

           

                     This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the averments that she purchased admission form and  brochure  of ICFAI  Business school  from Opposite Party no.3 and applied for PG programme  of IOBS (2007-2009)  and was selected for the said programme vide admit card No.1206-12708 and  allotted Bangalore campus by the Opposite Parties.  As per the order of the Opposite Parties, she deposited first installment of admission fee worth Rs.40,000/-  through demand draft bearing No.489292  issued by the  State Bank of Patiala, Karnal.  Due to some unavoidable circumstances, it was not possible for her to join her classes at Bangalore, therefore, as per rules of AICTE, Govt. of India, she applied for cancellation  of her admission and refund of admission fee, vide letter dated 5.4.2007. All India Council for  technical Education, had specifically  instructed  all the technical institutions to refund entire fee collected from the students after deduction of process fee  and not more than Rs.1000/- , in the event of  a student/candidate  withdrawing before starting of the course.  As, she had also applied for refund of the fee  before starting of the course, the Opposite Parties were liable to refund the amount after deducting the reasonable process charges, but the Opposite parties did not refund any amount to her despite repeated reminders. She further requested the Opposite parties vide letter dated 25.4.2007 to refund admission fee of Rs.40,000/- after deducting process fee but the Opposite parties had not taken any action, which clearly established deficiency in services on their part. Ultimately, she got issued legal notice and reminders, but the Opposite parties  had not refunded the fee, which caused her mental harassment apart from financial loss.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties. Opposite Party no.2 appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is hopelessly time barred; that the complainant is not covered  within purview of the Act; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint; that the complainant has no cause of action and that complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be decided by this Forum in a summary manner.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant was provided with programme   Prospectus of ICFAI business school. After going through the prospectus she submitted application for enrolment by duly accepting the terms and conditions, legal aspects and liabilities of the programme.  She had furnished application form duly signing declaration mentioned therein.  The complainant applied for cancellation of admission only after commencement of the classes. Seat allotted to her was kept vacant without replacing with any candidate in waiting list, therefore, directions of AICTE were not applicable to her case. It has further been pleaded that all the requests of the complainant were duly answered that admission fee  was not refundable except the tuition fee. Legal notice sent by the complainant was also replied exhaustively, vide letter dated 11.8.2007. The complainant had voluntarily withdrawn from the programme without any explicit approval from the Opposite Party, therefore, she was not  entitled to get refund of the fee deposited by her. Thus, there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite parties. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.                The Opposite Party no.2  also appeared through Sh.Subodh Gupta Advocate before this Forum on 7.9.2010, but written statement could not lbe filed and defence of Opposite party no.2 was struck off, vide order dated 18.11.2010.

 

4.                The Opposite Party no.3 refused to accept the service of  summons, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated against it vide order dated 13.4.2011.

 

5.                In evidence of the complainant, her affidavit Ex.CW1 and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 have been tendered.

 

6.                On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Parties, affidavit of Sh.R.R.Readdy, Admission Officer Ex.OP2/A has been tendered.

 

7.                We have  heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

8.                The complainant was selected for Post Graduate Programme of IOBS

(2007-2009) rendered by ICFAI business  school, vide admit card No.1206/12708 and allotted Bangalore campus by the Opposite Parties. She had deposited the first installment of Rs.40,000/- as admission fee.  However, she applied for cancellation of her admission and refund of admission fee vide letter dated 5.4.2007. The complainant has pleaded that  as per rules of the All India  Council for  Technical Education, Govt. of India, the Opposite Parties  could deduct maximum amount of Rs.1000/- as process fee and refund the balance, but the Opposite Parties did not refund any amount to her despite her repeated reminders and legal notice.  On the other hand, the Opposite Parties submitted that  the complainant applied for cancellation of the admission only after commencement of the classes. The seat allotted to her was kept vacant without replacing any candidate from waiting list.   As the complainant had voluntarily withdrawn from the programme without approval of the Opposite Parties, she was not entitled to get refund of the fee deposited by her.

 

9.                The learned counsel for the Opposite Parties  put a great thrust upon the contention that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in the matter of admission fees etc., there can not be  a question of deficiency in services. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the provisions of the Act.  Consequently, the present complaint of the complainant for refund of the fees deposited by her for the purpose of admission, is not maintainable.  In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon Maharashi Dayanand University Versus Surjit Kumar 2010(II) SSC 159= 2010(2) CPC 696, P.T.Kawshy  and another  Versus  Eleen Charitable Trust and others 2012(3) CPC 615, Lovely Professional Unviersity Vs.Mohit Soni 2013(4) CLT 608 and Indian Institute of Planning and Management Versus Mr. Achinta Rao FFA/558/2013 decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , West Bengal on 5.12.2014.

 

10.     To wriggle out of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that Opposite Parties were charging fees from the students for Post Graduate programme rendered by Opposite Party no.1. As per rules of the All India Council  for  Technical Education, Govt. of India, the Opposite Parties could deduct process fee only and was bound to refund the remaining amount of fee deposited by the complainant. The Opposite Parties have not produced any record to prove that seat for which the complainant was  selected remained unfilled. It has been further argued that  charging fee for education programme amounts to providing of services and therefore, the complainant was consumer of the Opposite Parties,  who were service providers and as such the complaint is  very well maintainable. In this context he relied upon Dhirendra Kumar and others Versus M.R.Sarangapani and others  the Consumer Case No.255 of 2001 decided by the Hon’ble National Commission on14.1.2015, Birla Institute of Technology  and Science Pilani  Versus Abhishek Mengi revision petition No.1668 of 2012 decided by the Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 23.4.2013 and Ganpati  College of Engineering for Girls village Shahpur tehsil Bilaspur district Yamunanager   Versus Vijeta etc. revision petition no.347  of 2012 decided by the Hon’ble National Commission on 25.5.2012.

 

11.     In Maharishi Dayanand University’s case (Supra),  the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in the matter of admission fee etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency in services. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the provisions of the Act.   In P.T. Kawshya and another’s case (Supra), similar principle of law was followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.   In Lovely Professional University’s case (Supra) the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana held that “educational institutions are not service providers and student is not consumer so as to come within the jurisdiction of the Consumer  Forum.    In Indian Institute of Planning and Management’s case (Supra), the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharishi Dayanand University’s case (Supra), was followed by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal.

 

12.               Thus, in view of the aforediscussed authorities, the  proposition of law emerges that education is not a commodity. Educational Institutions are not  providing any kind of service, therefore, in the matter of admission fee etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency in services. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Act.

 

13.               In Dhirendera Kumar and other’s case (Supra), students were lured by  advertisement  inserted by  “Merit International Institute of Technology”  which offered undergraduate Degree courses specialized in the subjects  and was recognized by Foreign Universities. It was nowhere stated that institute was recognized by any Indian University and the and advertisement  was  conspicuously silent about it. There were some other misrepresentations with malafide intention. Under those circumstances, it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that offering admission for a course on  representation that college was affiliated with University, whereas it was not, amounts to deficiency in services.  In Birla Institute of Technology and Science Pilani’s case (Supra), the complainant deposited adequate fee and got admission in Punjab Engineering College Chandigarh but immediately thereafter he made  request to refund fee and give original certificates, but the college did not refund the fee and  intimated that fee was forfeited as withdrawal form was not submitted, though the mess advance was refunded.  It was observed by the Hon’ble National Commission that college could not place any document to show that seat vacated by the complainant was not filled up at all.  Under those circumstances it was held that there was no jurisdictional  or legal error.     In Ganpati college of Engineering’s case (Supra), four complainants had taken admission in B.Tech in the month of  August, 2008 and they paid fees depending upon the courses. They were assured that they could seek  refund in the event of not continuing with the course.  The complainants sought refund on the ground that they had practically not attended any of the classes. The Opposite Parties raised  the plea that seats allotted to the complainants remained unfilled throughout season resulting into financial loss to the college because of the nonpayment of the balance fees. It was also pleaded that complainants had signed an undertaking that in case they would leave the institute mid-stream they would not claim refund of fee deposited by them. It was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that finding the view taken by the District Forum and State Commission was based on a  of fact, which cannot be disturbed in  the revision petition.  No jurisdictional error or mis carriage of justice was found to take a different view than what was taken by the two Foras below. Therefore, the revision petitions were dismissed.

 

14.               It is pertinent to note that in  none of the aforediscussed authorities cited on behalf of the complainant, judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharishi Dayanand University’s case (Supra) and P.T.Kawsshy’s case (Supra) were considered.  Therefore, these authorities do not cut any ice in favour of the complainant as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court is to prevail, according to which educational institutions are not providing any kind of services. Therefore, the Opposite Parties cannot be considered as service providers and the complainant as their consumer. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant under the  provisions of the Act is not maintainable.

 

15.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, the present complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:31.03.2016.

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

Present:-       Sh.G.P.Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh.Subodh Gupta Advocate for the Opposite Party no.2.

                    Opposite Parties no.1 and 3 exparte.

 

                   Arguments heard. For orders, the case is adjourned to 31.3.2016.

Announced
dated:30.03.2016.

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

Present:-       Sh.G.P.Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh.Subodh Gupta Advocate for the Opposite Party no.2.

                    Opposite Parties no.1 and 3 exparte.

 

                   Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:31.03.2016.

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.