DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW

CASE No.507 of 2014

       Arpit Pratap Singh, aged about 24 yrs.,

       S/o Late Sri Uday Pratap Singh,

       R/o C-265, Nirala Nagar, 

       Lucknow.

                                                                    ……Complainant

Versus

                  Integral University,

                  Dasauli Kursi Road,

                  M.D.R. 77 C, Lucknow.

                  Through Kul Sachiv.

                                                                               .......Opp. Party

Present:-

Sri Vijai Varma, President.

Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.

Sri Rajarshi Shukla, Member.

JUDGMENT

This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OP for refund of Rs.65,000.00 with 18% interest and for compensation etc.

          The case in brief of the Complainant is that he had taken admission in the University of the OP on 18.06.2012 and had deposited Rs.70,000.00 as admission fee etc. but subsequently he was selected in NDA and thereafter he informed the OP and the OP had told them that they would repay the fees after deducting Rs.1,000.00 but they only refunded Rs.5,000.00 and refused to refund the balance amount.

          The OP has filed the WS wherein he has refuted the contention of the Complainant and challenged the maintainability of the complaint.

          As per the judgment of the Hon’ble NCDRC in III (2014) CPJ 120 (NC) Regional Institute of Cooperative Management Vs Naveen Kumar Chaudhary & others wherein it has been held that the educational institutions are not the

-2-

service providers and the students did not come within the purview of the definition of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. In P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs Ellen Charitable Trust and Ors. it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “In Maharshi Dayanand University Vs Surjeet Kaur 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.”

          From the facts of the aforesaid case, it is clear that this case relates to the refund of fees and as per the aforesaid judgments it is abundantly clear that the OP being educational institutions, is not service provider in a case involving refund of fees etc. and therefore this complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act in this Forum. Therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed. However, the Complainant can seek remedy before the appropriate Forum or Civil Court as per law.

ORDER

          The complaint is dismissed.

The parties to bear their own costs.

(Rajarshi Shukla)     (Anju Awasthy)                   (Vijai Varma)

       Member                     Member                    President   

Dated:   4  June, 2015