Delhi

West Delhi

CC/13/305

LOKESH CHAWLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF LEARNING AND ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jan 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

                                                                                                         Date of institution:30.5.13               

Case. No.305/13                                                                                        Date of order: 03.01.17                      

IN  MATTER OF

 

Lokesh Chawla S/o Late O.P. Chawla

R/o C-104, Mitra Enclave, Greater Noida, U.P.                                             Complainant

VERSUS

Indian Institute of Learning and Advanced Development B1/576, Janakpuri, New Delhi

Also at: National Expressway -8, 81-P, Sec-34, Gurgaon-120001          Opposite party-1

 

R.C. Gupta Executive Director Indian Institute of Learning and Advanced Development,

National Expressway -8, 81-P, Sec-34, Gurgaon-120001                                     Opposite party -2

 

 

Deepak Sharma      Vice President Indian Institute of Learning and Advanced Development,

National Expressway -8, 81-P, Sec-34, Gurgaon-120001                         Opposite party-3

 

M/S Primordial Systems Pvt. Ltd.                                                                    

B1/576, Janakpuri, New Delhi                                                                           Opposite party-4             

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                               

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

 Briefly the case of the complainant is that he took admission with the Opposite Party-1 an education institution for persuing PG Diploma in event management & Public Relations on payment of requisite fee. The opposite parties at time of admission told the complainant that they shall provide internship and placement. But the opposite party failed to provide internship in any Indian or Global corporation as promised.  The complainant  approached and requested the Opposite Party to refund the fee.  But the Opposite Party refused to refund the same.   Hence, the present complaint for directions  to  the Opposite Parties1and 4 to pay Rs 3,52,900/-of the fee charged and Rs40,000/- compensation on account of mental pain and agony and  deficiency in service.  

            After notice Opposite Parties1and4 appeared and filed joint reply admitting that the complainant took admission with the Opposite Party 1. They asserted that the complaint is not maintainable as complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as provided  under the Consumer Protection Act.  More over there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their part. They further asserted that as per the terms of contract the Opposite Parties are not liable to refund fee under any circumstance and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

            The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of Opposite Parties1 and 4 wherein he once again reiterated his stand taken in complaint and controverted the stand taken by the Opposite Parties.  

The parties were asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit.   The complainant in support of his case filed affidavit dated 03.03.14, wherein he once again reiterated the facts of the complaint. The complainant in support of his case relied upon copy of receipts dated 19.9.12, 28.9.12, 25.10.12 and 3.11.12,copy of mails, copy of legal notice and reply to the notice.  The Opposite Parties 1&4 filed affidavit of shri Sunil Mishra dated 13.8.14,wherein he has asserted the stand taken in the reply  and once again prayed for dismissal of the complaint and relied upon copy of brochure, copy of ISO9001:2008 certificate,copy of placement highlight, copy of management and faculty profile and copy of student policy and regulations.

We have heard the complainant in person and Learned. Counsel of the Opposite Parties at length and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.  We are of the opinion that the main controversy/ issue is “whether Mr.Lokesh Chawla, complainant, is consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and the opposite parties are 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 institutions 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 no.22532/12 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 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 party1 an education Institution for persuing PG Diploma in event management and Public Relations on payment of requisite fee.  The opposite parties are imparting education. Therefore as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble National Commission and  Hon’ble State Commission of Chandigarh consistantly education is not a commodity and the Opposite Parties are not service providers and the  complainant is not a consumer under the  Consumer Protection Act.

Therefore, complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act-1986.  . Resultantly  the complaint is dismissed.

Order pronounced on : 03.01.2017

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

• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

(URMILA GUPTA)                                                                          (R.S.  BAGRI)

  MEMBER                                                                                        PRESIDENT