BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.191 of 2016

Date of Instt. 29.04.2016

Date of Decision :27.06.2016

Aayush Gupta (minor) son of Pankaj Gupta, through his father, natural guardian, next friend Pankaj Gupta R/o 14, Cheeman Nagar Extenstion, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.Intel Quest, above Easy Day, near Thind Eye Hospital, Manbro Chowk, Mall Road, Jalandhar through its Authorized Signatory/ MD/ Office Head.

2.Vivek Gupta, C/o Intel Quest, above Easy Day, near Thind Eye Hospital, Manbro Chowk, Mall Road, Jalandhar

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Mrs. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Manuj Aggarwal Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against Intel Quest Education Institute, Jalandhar with the submissions that opposite parties(hereinafter called as OPs) are providing coaching in various discipline/courses. Resultantly, complainant got admission in opposite party institution in April 2015. OP settled total fee of the complete coaching course Rs.75,000/- which includes the price of study material. Complainant paid Rs.10,000/- vide receipt dated 1.4.2014, Rs.39570/- vide receipt dated 21.4.2015 and Rs.15,000/- vide receipt dated 25.6.2015 to the Ops. Complainant submitted that there was dispute between the Ops and one of their teachers, Mr.Sushil in July 2015. As such, Ops could not provide coaching teacher in place of said Mr.Sushil, Chemistry Teacher. Complainant, therefore, requested the Ops to refund the fee Rs.64,570/- paid by complainant to the OP but the OP did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Hence, the present complaint for refund of fee alongwith compensation, interest, etc.

2. We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have minutely gone through the file on the question whether complainant is a consumer qua the opposite parties or not?

3. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that complaint can not be rejected in limini without giving notice to the opposite party. Here, this Forum does not agree with this contention of learned counsel for the complainant because this Forum has to see first whether complainant is a consumer and the dispute of the complainant is a consumer dispute, then and only then the complaint is to be admitted for adjudication. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that as per various decisions of Hon'ble State Commission and Hon'ble National Commission/Apex Court, admission fee for awarding education degrees and holding examination can be refunded to the complainant. Moreover, the opposite party is private educational Institution. As such, the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of 'P.T.Koshy & Anr Vs Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors' 2012(C) CPC 615 is not applicable. We have gone through various rulings cited by learned counsel for the complainant. All these rulings cited by learned counsel for the complainant are prior to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in aforesaid case 'P.T.Koshy & Anr Vs Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors' and are the rulings of Hon'ble State Commission and Hon'ble National Commission. The Apex Court in case 'P.T.Koshy & Anr Vs Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors' 2012(C) CPC 615 has categorically stated that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fee, etc., there can not be a question of deficiency of service, such matter can not be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986”. The Hon'ble Apex Court even declined the special leave petition. No where in the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has distinguished the educational institutionals i.e. Government Educational Institutions or private educational institutions. The Apex Court has categorically held that education is not a commodity and the educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fee etc, there can not be question of deficiency of service. Resultantly, we hold that the present complaint is not a consumer complaint. As such, this Forum can not even entertain the matter in dispute in this complaint. Resultantly, we hold that present complaint is not maintainable. Therefore, it is ordered that complaint be returned to the complainant with liberty to approach the appropriate court/authority for the redressal of his grievances. Copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Bhupinder Singh

27.06.2016 Member Member President