DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

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

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.23/2022

Tarun Adarsh

S/o Mr. Subhash Chandra Srivastava

R/o Flat C3, Khasra No.305, 306, Saidulajab,

Saket, Delhi – 110030

                                                                                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

Indian Institute of Science Education and Research,

Through its Registrar, Maruthmala PO,

Vithura, Thiruvanantpuram – 695551

Kerala, India

Union of India,

Through its Secretary,

Ministry of Education,

Department of Higher Education, Government of India,

Room No. – 127-C, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001

        ….Opposite Parties    

       Date of Institution    :         05.02.2022

       Date of Order            :         14.03.2022

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the Indian institute of Science Education and Research, Thiruvananthapuram and against Union of India praying for award of MS degree in his favour and seeking refund of Rs. 1,91,900/- along with @12% p.a interest and a compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- for providing deficient services and causing mental agony, harassment, pain. The complainant also seeks cost of Rs.1,50,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Before we go into the facts of the case it is pertinent to consider whether the complainant is a consumer or not i.e whether the complainant has a consumer relationship with the OP or not.

Hon’ble SC in the matter of Maharishi Dayanand University vs Surjeet Kaur (2010)11SCC159 has held.

The respondent as a student is neither a consumer nor is the appellant rendering any service. The claim of the respondent to award B.Ed. degree was almost in the nature of a relief praying for a direction to the appellant to act contrary to its own rules. The National Commission, in our opinion, with the utmost respect to the reasoning given therein did not take into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and thus, arrived at a wrong conclusion. The case decided by this Court in Bihar School Examination Board (supra) clearly lays down the law in this regard with which we find ourselves in full agreement with.

Following the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case and other cases the Hon’ble NCDRC in Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training vs. Aashima Jarial 2019 (2) CPR 396 has held as under:

"P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 22532 of 2012 decided on 9.8.2012. It has been held that:-

In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur MANU/SC/0485/2010 : 2010 (11) SCC 159 wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."

In light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble NCDRC, this Commission is of the view that the complainant is not a consumer and therefore no consumer dispute is made out. The complaint is dismissed in limine.

File be consigned to record room after providing copy of the order to the party.