DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW
CASE No.612 of 2013
Kumar Dheeraj Choudhary, adult,
R/o 569 p/881, Prem Nagar,
Alambagh, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
……Complainant
Versus
1. Manager,
International College of Financial Planning,
A-29, 2nd, 1st Floor, Ramkrishan Math,
Om Marriage Lawn, Nirala Nagar,
Lucknow.
2. Director,
International College of Financial Planning,
5th Floor, Bajaj House 97,
Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.
.......Opp. Parties
Present:-
Sri Vijai Varma, President.
Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.
JUDGMENT
This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs for refund of fees of Rs.24,000.00 and compensation etc.
The case in brief of the Complainant is that the OPs told the Complainant that they would provided the certificate of CPF-KS course which will be valid at all places and there was no need to come to the institute and he should give only one hour time at house and the OPs completed the course in 12 months and provided the certificate. The OPs have also told that they also provided job to the students. The Complainant deposited Rs.24,000.00 with the institute of OPs and started his studies. When the Complainant enquired about the course of the OPs then he could come to know that 1-2 hour was not
-2-
sufficient for this course. When the Complainant went the day after to the institute of the OPs he saw that the institute was closed by the OPs. The Complainant wrote various letters and sent many emails regarding the refund of fees but the OP did not reply the same, hence this complaint.
The OPs have filed a reply mentioning there in that they have not committed any deficiency in service and that this complaint deserves to be dismissed with special costs as it is based on false and frivolous facts.
In this regard, it is to be noted that in a plethora of cases the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble NCDRC and Hon’ble SCDRC, UP have held that the case relating to refund of fees is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act in the Fora. 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.” In III (2014) CPJ 120 (NC) Regional Institute of Cooperative Management Vs Naveen Kumar Chaudhary & others it has been held by the Hon’ble NCDRC that the educational institution has not provided any kind of service. Also in the case decided by the Hon’ble SCDRC, U.P. in Appeal No.1332/11 MITC & others Vs Kumari Pushpa Bisht and other appeals on 22.08.2014 it has been held that the Complainants/students are not the consumers of the OP and that the education does not come within the purview of the commodity and OP is not a service provider, hence there is no question of deficiency of service, therefore the Complainants are not entitled to any relief from
-3-
the Forum. On the basis of the aforesaid judgments, it is abundantly clear that the OPs being an educational institution, is not a service provider in a case involving 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 at this stage itself. 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.
(Anju Awasthy) (Vijai Varma)
Member President
Dated: 22July, 2015
