DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.113/2015

Shri Abhay Agarwal

S/o Shri Anil Agarwal

R/o 187-A Carriappa Marg,

Sainik Farm,

New Delhi-110062

….Complainant

Versus

Director, IIPM

IIPM International Campus,

Satbari, Chandan Haula,

Chattarpur Bhatimines Road,

New Delhi-110074

        ….Opposite Party

 Date of Institution    : 30.04.2015      

 Date of Order            : 09.10.2024      

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Present: Adv. Apoorva Singh, proxy counsel on behalf of Adv. Rajeev

     Kumar Mishra for complainant.

               Adv. Nabil Ahmed, proxy counsel on behalf of Adv. Shiv  

              Chetri for OP.

ORDER

Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal

1.       Briefly put complainant had applied for a BBA Program for the batch of 2014 with Indian Institute of Planning Management (IIPM), hereinafter referred to as OP.

2.       It is stated that complainant was told that OP’s institution was approved by UGC and was affiliated to IMI, Belgium therefore OP paid the retention fee of Rs.2,00,000/- to OP.  However, complainant came to know that OP’s institute was neither approved by UGC nor it had any affiliation with IMI, Belgium.  Upon having this knowledge complainant’s father wrote a letter to OP on 11.07.2014 asking OP to cancel the admission as the complainant was not interested in pursuing the above said course.  It is stated that complainant did not attend a single class conducted by IIPM.

3.       It is further stated that the complainant was informed by the officials of OP that the fees paid by the complainant would be refunded in accordance with the UGC guidelines.  However, no fees was refunded rather complainant was asked by OP to pay the second instalment towards fees. It is stated that complainant’s father repeatedly wrote letters for refund of fee but to no avail.

4.       Alleging unfair trade practice complainant prays for direction to OP to refund Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @18% per annum towards the fee paid by the complainant and to pay the cost of litigation.

5.       Despite due service none appeared on behalf of OP therefore OP was proceeded exparte vide order dated 01.07.2015.  Evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments have been filed on behalf of the complainant.  Submissions made are heard.  Material placed on record is perused.

6.       It is not in dispute that the complainant took admission in the BBA Program of OP which would fall under the educational services. Hon’ble NCDRC in Manu Solanki and others Vs. Vinayak Mission University and other connected cases, 1 (2020) CPJ, 2010 held that educational services do not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.  Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

“38. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in Revision Petition Nos. 2955 to 2963 of 2018 submitted that once the University is declared as ‘Deemed University’ all functions and activities governed by the University Grants Commission Act (UGC Act), fall within the definition of “Authority’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and would be amenable only to the jurisdiction of the High Court.  It is contended that even if the Education Institutions do not have a proper affiliation, Consumer Fora do not have jurisdiction to entertain the same.  In our view even if an Institution imparting education does not have a proper affiliation in imparting education, it is not rendering any service and, therefore, will be out of the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

39. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Revision Petition 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.

40. There may be instances where there may be defect/deficiency of service in pre-admission stages by an educational Institution but as the educational Institutions are not rendering any service by imparting education, these instances will also not give any right for a person to approach the Consumer Fora under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”

7.       It is also noted that the complainant withdrew from OP institute upon having the knowledge that OP institute does not have any approval from UGC nor is it affiliated to IMI, Belgium. The said fact would amount to  fraud, cheating and misrepresentation.  The cases of fraud and cheating also do not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. 

8.       In light of the foregoing discussion and the judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. Therefore the complaint is returned with liberty to approach the appropriate forum and the time spent before this Commission be condoned with respect to the aspect of limitation. Ordered accordingly.

Parties be provided copy of the judgment as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.