CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.55/2011
ANU DAHIYA
D/O R.S. DAHIYA
R/O H.NO. 29/216
(NEAR MALIK FURNITURE HOUSE)
DEV NAGAR, KAKROI ROAD,
SONEPAT (HARYANA)
(THROUGH HER FATHER-
R.S. DAHIYA BEING THE SPA HOLDER …..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- DIRECTOR
ICRI RESEARCH (P) LTD.
OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA
PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-20 (DELHI CAMPUS)
- ICRI RESEARCH (P) LTD.
D-41, GROUND FLOOR,
DEFENCE COLONY,
NEW DELHI – 24
(CORPORATE OFFICE). …..RESPONDENT
Date of Institution-28.01.2011
Date of Order- 06.01.2023
O R D E R
RITU GARODIA-MEMBER
The complaint pertains to deficiency in service on part of OP in not refunding the registration fees.
Brief facts are stated in the complaint are that the complainant being a student applied for admission to a course namely P.G.D.A.C.R. in June 2010 by OP1 and OP2. After reading the advertisement, the complainant approached OP1 and OP2 who conveyed that the P.G.D.A.C.R. course is recognized by Delhi University and approved by UGC. OP1 is the campus office of ICRI (P) Limited and OP2 is a corporate office of the same.
In good faith, the complainant paid Rs. 30,000/- towards registration fees. The complainant alleges that after issuing the receipt and after complainant has put her signature, OP with malafide intention wrote above the signature “Registration amount not refundable”. The receipt dated 3.6.2010 was then handed over to the complainant.
Thereafter, complainant visited the Delhi University for verification of P.G.D.A.C.R. course. She found out that this course was not recognized by Delhi University. The complainant visited OP1 and requested for refund of registration fees. As OP refused to refund the fees, the complainant sent a legal notice. The complainant alleges that the education institutions are not only profit making concerns but should have a reasonable and student friendly approach and follow the constitutional provision and guidelines issued by UGC.
The complainant prays for refund of Rs. 30,000/- with interest @ 9%p.a. and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for the pain and sufferings caused to her.
Notice was issued to OP but none appeared. OP were proceeded Ex-parte vide order dated 14.09.2012.
The complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit in support of her complaint and exhibited the following documents:-
- Receipt dated 3.6.2010 as Annexure A.
- Copy of Legal notice as Annexure B.
- Postal receipts as Annexure C.
None appeared to assist the Commission at the time of arguments. Therefore, the Commission decided to proceed with this matter as per law with materials on record.
The Commission has given a thoughtful consideration to material on record. The first issue that arises for consideration is whether the complaint is maintainable. Hon’ble National Commission in Manu Solanki Vs. Vinayaka Mission University and other connected cases Consumer Case No. 261 of 2010 decided on 20.01.2020 has elaborated on the question of education being a service covered under Consumer Protection Act in the following manner “learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Revision Petitions No. 222 of 2015 vehemently contended that the Complainant had taken admission in B. Ed. Course of the Opposite Party on the assurance that the said college was recognized by National Council of Technical Education (NCTE) and affiliated with the Opposite Party No. 2, Uttrakhand Technical University, who subsequently came to know that the Institute was not recognized by NCTE and therefore sought for refund of the fees. Whether such an unfair trade practice post admission would fall within the ambit of the Act needs to be seen. As the Institution is imparting education though it has been not recognized by the National Council of Technical Education, it would not make any difference because it will be covered under the education. Thus, the said Institute would not be rendering any service as defined in the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”
Admittedly, the complainant is a student and has paid the registration fees to OP for education purposes. Considering the ratio laid down in the above referred judgment that education is not a commodity and institutions (recognized or unrecognized) imparting education cannot be service provider and a student cannot be a consumer, this Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the matters pertaining to deficiency in service in education. Hence, this complaint is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
(Dr. RAJENDER DHAR) (RITU GARODIA) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
