Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/306

Bhawani Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Institute of Aeronautical Science - Opp.Party(s)

19 Sep 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                                         Date of institution          20.5.14

Case. No.306/14                                                                                             Date of order:                19.9.16

 

In the matter of

 

Bhawani Singh,

House No.316, Road No.8

Rajendra Park, Nangloi,

Delhi-41                                                                                                          COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

Indian Institute of Aeronautical Science,

414/2,Rani Khera More,

Mundka,Delhi-41                                                                                            OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT

 

 

Briefly case of the complainant is that he took admission with the Opposite Party Indian Institute of Aeronautical Science, for persuing engineering course on payment of requisite fee.  The institute of Opposite Party was  initially located at B-22,Multan Nagar, Main Rohtak Road, Delhi-56.But later on the institute was shifted from Multan Nagar to M.R. Bharti School, Mundka  and again after six months to 414/14, Rani Khera More, Mundka. Therefore,  due to shifting of the institute classes were closed  and later on  subsequently due to non-taking of classes the  students could not pass their exams.    The Opposite Party misguided and gave wrong information to the student and suggested to take exams.   But some students left the institute and complainant also stopped attending the classes.  He also didn’t pay the requisite fee  of the third year.   He requested the Opposite Party to refund his fee and pay compensation alongwith interest for loss of studies.     The

-2-

Opposite Party  failed to refund the fee.  Hence the present complaint for direction to the Opposite Party to refund the fee and pay compensation on account of loss of studies and time.

 

            After notice Opposite Party filed reply admitting that the complainant took admission with the Opposite Party.  But asserted that they did not provide wrong information and misguide the complainant and asked him to appear in the exams.   They further  asserted that complainant ‘s performance was not good.   He failed to complete the course.   He didn’t deposited the course fee despite reminders.   The Opposite Party further  alleged that there is no deficiency in service on part of the Opposite Party, therefore, the complaint may be dismissed. 

 

            The parties were asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit.  The complainant filed affidavit dated 1.5.15  stating that the  institute was closed permanently.  He  prayed for directions to the Opposite Party to refund the fee.    The complainant in support of his case filed copy of Identity Card, receipts dated 1.7.09, 21.7.10 and 4.7.12.  The Opposite Party filed  affidavit of Birender Singh dated 28.7.11.  Wherein he once again denied claim of complainant and alleged that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party could not issue certificate of the course without completion .  He further asserted that many students have completed the course successfully. 

 

            We have heard parties and appraised material on record carefully.  We are of the opinion that the main controversy/issue involved is “whether Bhawani Singh, complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and the Opposite Party is a service provider”?

 

      These issues have been dealt in detail by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case reported as MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY VS SURJEET KAUR 2010 (11)Supreme Court Cases 159.  Wherein it is held that education is not a commodity. The educational institutionals are not service providers. Therefore the students are not consumers. Similar view is taken by another bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in special leave petition no22532/12 titled P.T.KOSHY& ANR VS ELLEN CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS decided on 9.8.12.  Similar view is taken by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition no 1684/2009 titled as REGISTRAR ,GGS INDERAPRASTHA

-3-

UNIVERSITY VS MISS TANVI decided on 29.1.2015 ,in Revision Petition No 4335/14 titled as Mayank Tiwari vs  Fiitjee decided on 8.12.14, in Revision Petition No 3365/2006 titled FIITJEE VS DR.(MRS) MINATHI RATH, in Revision Petition No 1805/2007 titled FITJEE VS B.B.POPLI, Revision Petition No 3496/2006 P.T.Education vs Dr MINATHI and in Revision Petition No 2660/2007  all decided on 14.11.11 by common order .   Similar view is also taken by Hon’ble  State Commission of Chandigarh in Appeal no 244/2014 titled M/s fiitjee ltd vs Mayank Tiwari decided on 23.9.14.

       Similar are the facts of the present case .The complainant took admission with opposite party for persuing engineering course with opposite Party’s institute .  The opposite party is giving education. Therefore as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court,  Hon’ble National Commission and  Hon’ble State Commission of Chandigarh time and again education is not a commodity and the opposite party is not service provider and the  student is not a consumer under the  Consumer Protection Act.      Therefore, complaint is not maintainable. Resultantly  the complaint is dismissed.

Order pronounced on :19.09.2016

 

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.

 

Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.