DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.20/2018
Vishruta Kohar
D/o Col. Vivek Kohar R/o 735/1,
Tarapore Enclave, Hissar Cantt,
Hissar (Haryana)-125006
Through Attorney
Mrs. Sanjivani Kohar
W/o Colonel Vivek Kohar
R/o 735/1, Tarapore Enclave,
Hissar Cantt, Hissar (Haryana)-125006
….Complainant
Versus
- Indian School of Business & Finance
15-A Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-IV
New Delhi-110024
2. Teamwork Education Foundation,
15-A, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-IV,
New Delhi-110024.
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 29.01.2018
Date of Order : 25.05.2023
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
1. Facts as pleaded by the Complainant are -
Complainant took admission with Indian School of Business & Finance, hereinafter referred to as OP-1 in the B.Sc Economics & Management Programme on 28.05.2016.Complainant deposited fee of Rs.2, 26,200/- towards the same. Team Work Education Foundation (OP-2) is a company incorporated u/s 8 which runs and manages OP-1.
2. It is stated that the Complainant was promised 100% refund if the Complainant requests for withdrawal of admission and refund on or before 06.07.2016. It is stated that as the Complainant had applied for B. A Honours in English in Delhi University. It was only when OP-1 agreed that the fee would be refunded in case the Complainant gets admission in Delhi University, Complainant deposited the fee of Rs.2,26,200/- after 8 days from the last date which was mentioned in the admission form i.e 13.06.2016. The receipt dated 21.06.2016 is annexed as Annexure-C.
3. The Complainant got selected in Delhi University on 11.07.2016 and she was required to submit her original documents which were with OP-1. Complainant approached OP-1 on 11.07.2016 and requested to withdraw her admission, return her original documents and refund the fee. The said documents were handed to the Complainant after many mails and visits to the OP-1’s office which caused lot of mental agony and harrassment to the Complainant.
4. It is next stated that the classes of OP-1 were to commence from second week of August, 2016 and the Complainant had sought refund on 26.07.2016 i.e prior to the commencement of classes. Complainant has filed Email dated 31.07.2016 of an acquaintance who enquired from OP-1 to know whether the admissions were open. OP-1 confirmed the same. It is stated that if the admissions were still open there was no reason for OP-1 to retain the fee which was sought on 11.07.2016 orally and vide written communication on 26.07.2016.
5. It is further stated that Complainant had filed a case in this Commission earlier also vide CC no. 255/2016. However, as the Complainant’s father is serving in the army and Complainant was a minor, no one could keep track of the said consumer case and the same was dismissed in default on 24.11.2017.
6. Despite efforts made by the Complainant, as OP-1 was not forthcoming to refund the fee, Complainant approached this Commission with prayer that OPs be directed to pay jointly and severally sum of Rs.3,36,200/- alongwith interest @9% p.a from 26.07.2016 till realization.
7. OP-1 resisted the complaint and filed the written version raising preliminary objection that the Complainant has malafidely filed the complaint under wrong jurisdiction. Next objection of OP-1 is that the Complainant had filed a case in this Commission which was dismissed in default for non-prosecution, present complaint filed by the Complainant on same cause of action is barred by res judicata.
8. OP-1 further states that Complainant applied in the institute of OP-1 on 28.04.2016 to pursue the coveted B.Sc Economics and Management Programme in the month of April, 2016. It is next stated that as per the terms of contract, the amount paid was not refundable and same was also within the knowledge of the Complainant and her parent. It is stated that there was an offer and acceptance of the contract as defined under the Indian Contract Act, 1908 and neither party can unilaterally withdraw from it. Therefore Complainant is barred by agitating the same now.
9. It is stated that parents of the Complainant kept on gaining time for paying the fee by stating that they did not have enough money at that time and requested to block a seat for their ward with an assurance to pay the fee in near future. It is further stated that though the last date for depositing the fee by the Complainant was 13.06.2016, OP with consultation with its admission committee gave extension of time for depositing the fee till 21.06.2016 under special circumstances.
10. It is stated that a refund request as well as withdrawal of the admission was filed by the Complainant vide letter dated 26.07.2016 and in response to the said letter Complainant was informed that both parties are bound by the terms of the contract. It is stated that as per Clause 9 of the ISBF (OP-1) refund policy , students are entitled to 100 per cent refund if request for withdrawal of admission and refund is received on or before 6th July,2016. Therefore any claim of refund at the this stage is time barred.
11. It is thus prayed that in the interest of justice , complaint be rejected with heavy costs.
12. Complainant has filed rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the complaint. Evidence by way of affidavit and written submissions are filed on behalf of parties. Submissions made on behalf of parties are heard. Material placed on record is perused.
13. Before we proceed with the merits of the case it is pertinent to address the issue of maintainability. Admittedly Complainant took admission in the institute of OP-1 which is affiliated to University of London and paid the requisite fee. Complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this commission and is seeking refund of the fee with compensation.
14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T Koshy and Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors.,2012(3) CPC 615(SC) held that students are not ‘consumers’ and Education is not a ‘commodity’ and that Educational Institutions are not rendering ‘Service.’
15. Similar view is reiterated by a Three judge bench of Hon’ble National Commission in Deepak Tyagi and others v/s Sh. Chatrapati Shivaji pronounced on 20.01.2020 has held;
“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.”
16. In light of the judgements supra, instant matter is not maintainable before the Consumer Commission. Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed.
Parties be provided copy of the judgment as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
