Haryana

Ambala

CC/16/2013

KANWAR PARDEEP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICL INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING . - Opp.Party(s)

R.K JINDAL

16 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                         Complaint Case No.:     16 of 2013

  Date of Institution    :   16.01.2013       

   Date of Decision        :  16.10.2015

Kanwar Pardeep Singh resident of VPO Charri, Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra (H.P.).

…….Complainant

Versus

1.       ICL Institute of Engineering and Technology, Village Sountli, P.O. Shahzadpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala through its Chairman.

2.       Chairman of ICL Institute of Engineering and Technology, Village Sountli, P.O. Shahzadpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.

                                                                                       ……Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act.

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

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                  

Present:       Sh. R.K. Jindal, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                   None for Ops.

ORDER

                    Present complaint has been filed by complainant alleging therein that his son namely Aman Katoch took admission in the Institute of Ops in Mechanical Engineering and examinations of 4^th Semester got completed by the Ops. Further the complainant paid a sum of Rs.58,200/- vide draft number 948487 dated 03.06.2010 as fee for 5^th semester by raising a study loan of Rs.3.95 lacs from SBI. The complainant has alleged that due to some false allegations against his son, OP institute rusticated his son from the college vide letter dated 22.06.2010. The complainant has submitted that since his son has been rusticated from the college, Ops were bound to return the fee of Rs.58,200/- and hostel charges deposited by the complainant for 5^th semester.  Unfortunately, Aman Katoch died on 22.10.2011 and the complainant  made several requests to the Ops to return the said amount but all in vain. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 13.02.2012 was served upon the Ops  but they neither replied nor refunded the amount.  Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause has been preferred by the complainant.

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and filed written statement urging that son of complainant was highly indisciplined with other students & staff of institute and was also defaulter till his stay in the institute, so, Mr. Aman Katoch was rusticated from the college & hostel on 22.06.2010 and for such type of activities, he was also rusticated in March 2009.  As such,  complainant is not entitled for refund of fee of his son and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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 the same was closed by court vide order dated 15.10.2015.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for 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