Haryana

Ambala

CC/112/2014

SARANJEET SINGH S/O SH BALDEEP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICL INSTITUTE - Opp.Party(s)

G.S.ANTAL

22 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                          Complaint Case No.:   112 of 2014

  Date of Institution    :   02.05.2014 

  Date of Decision      :    22.09.2015

Saranjeet Singh son of Sh. Baldeep Singh R/o  VPO Jatwar, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.

……….Complainant

                                                                                          Versus

1.       M.D., ICL Institute of Management and Technology, Sountli, P.O. Shahzadpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.

 

2.       Principal, ICL Institute of Management and Technology, 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. G.S. Antal, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                   None for Ops.

ORDER

                    Present complaint has been filed by complainant alleging therein that he Booked a seat in B.Tech. Civil with the institute of Ops by paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- vide receipts No.2321 & 923 dated 03.07.2012 and the OPs assured that  if the complainant fails to get admission, they will return the money to the complainant. However, due to unhealthy atmosphere prevailing in the institute, complainant opted to get his registration cancelled. As such, the complainant visited the institute of Ops so many times to get back his money but the Ops delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. So, the complainant through his counsel sent legal notice to the Ops on 02.08.2013 but despite of receiving the notice, Ops failed to return his money. Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause.

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and filed written statement urging that ‘Student whoever took the admission in the college and if he wants to leave the seat, he has to inform the college authorities upto the date of admissions but in the present case, the complainant never informed the Ops and the seat remained booked in the name of complainant’ and due to this fault of the complainant, he never visited the Ops for return of the fees.  It has been further stated that as per instructions of AICTE, the student has to inform the institute in time but the complainant failed to do so.  In the end, prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs has been made.

3.                No evidence led by the parties.

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. 2012(3) CPC 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:22.09.2015                                                                               Sd/-

                                                                                                         (A.K. SARDANA)

                                                                                                              PRESIDENT

                                                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                                                   (PUSHPENDER KUMAR) 

                                                                                                                   MEMBER