Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 02-01-2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas in C.C. No. 90/2014 whereof the complaint has been dismissed.  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, Complainant thereof has preferred this Appeal.

In a nutshell, case of the Complainant is that the Complainant took admission at the OP Institution for the purpose of pursuing full time Post Graduate Programme in Planning & Entrepreneurship for the session 2012-2014.  For this purpose, the Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,17,500/- to the OP on 14-05-2012, apart from Rs. 50,000/- being paid by him on 24-04-2012.  Classes for the concerned session was scheduled to start from 15-05-2012.  After submitting necessary documents, the Complainant on 17-05-2012 sought for due permission to join the said programme.  However, the concerned office bearers asked him to enquire after June, 2012.  It is the further case of the Complainant that subsequently the OP took a volte face and squarely blamed the Complainant for not joining the course on 15-05-2012.  When the Complainant disclosed everything, he was advised to join the next batch scheduled to be started from 06-08-2012 and was asked to pay a further sum of Rs. 30,500/- as fees etc.  Having no other alternative, the Complainant was compelled to cough up the said money.  According to the instruction of the OP No. 1, the Complainant joined his 1^st semester classes from August, 2012 and paid Rs. 1,39,050/- on 19-10-2012 and another Rs. 1,39,000/- on 28-01-2013 being the fees for 2^nd and 3^rd semesters, respectively.  As ill luck would have it, due to his sickness, he could not attend the examination for 1^st semester.  After recovery, the Complainant requested the OP to allow him to join the 2^nd semester as the entire fee for said semester was paid by him.  However, the OP No. 1 did not allow him to do so.  The Complainant was further prevented from joining the classes for 3^rd semester for the reasons best known to the OPs.  Therefore, he demanded refund of the tuition fees amounting to Rs. 2,78,000/-, but to no avail.  Hence, the complaint.

Disputing maintainability of the complaint case, the OP No. 1 stated that it being an Educational Institution, it does not render any service to its students.  Therefore, it prayed for summary dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons

As notices sent to the Respondents got returned with the postal endorsement, ‘left’, newspaper publication was made to cause legal service of notice. However, as none of the Respondents turn up despite such public notice, the Appeal was heard ex parte.

It appears that the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint relying upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, reported in 2010 (II) SCC 159, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that education related matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Fora.

In this regard, it bears mentioning that the scope of entertaining disputes involving educational institution under the 1986 Act, in the light of aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court together with some other decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, has recently been explored by the Hon’ble National Commission in Krishan Mohan Goyal v. St. Mary’s Academy & Anr., reported in II (2017) CPJ 204 (NC).  Relevant portion of the observation of the Hon’ble Commission in the matter is appended below which is self-explanatory.

“Deficiency in imparting education which is the core function of an educational institution, in my view is altogether different from rendering such basic help and assistance to the students.  A student may not be the consumer of the school as far as the core function of imparting education or taking examinations is concerned, but, the position would be altogether different where the deficiency on the part of the educational institution is found in an activity altogether different from imparting education, where a consideration is being charged for such an activity on the part of the educational institution….”. 

From the finer distinction, as made out by the Hon’ble Commission, it is clear that although matters involving ‘imparting education’ cannot be decided by Consumer Fora, other factors like failure to provide basic amenities, indulgence of educational institutions in unfair trade practice do come under the purview of the 1986 Act.

Be that as it may, on an in-depth study of the complaint case, it seems to us that  in this case the core area of dispute was purely educational.  That being so, we are fully in agreement with the Ld. District Forum that the complaint was not admissible before the Ld. District Forum.

The Appeal being bereft of any leg to stand upon, it fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That the Appeal be and the same is dismissed ex parte against the Respondents without any cost.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.