Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that IDP Education Pvt. Ltd. was primarily engaged in counseling and guidance services to students desirous of pursuing education at overseas and the IDP Education Pvt. Ltd. also conduct the IELTS examination in India. The opposite parties was organizing International English Language Testing System (IELTS) tests in India for candidates seeking to study in, work in or migrate to English-speaking countries. Complainant hired the services of opposite parties on 14.11.2020 by registering her name at official website of opposite party i.e. IDP Education Pvt. Ltd. for IELTS Examination to be held on 21.11.2020. On 14.11.2020 complainant deposited the requisite fee of Rs.14000/- with opposite parties through online mode by using her own HDFC Bank Debit Card. The complainant received acknowledgement letter of venue card from opposite parties, through e-mail mentioning that the test of writing, reading and listening modules will be held on 21.11.2020 at Royal Marriage Palace Moga and test of speaking module on 26.11.2020 at Hotel Gold Coast, Moga. On 21.11.2020 complainant reached at the given venue for appearing in test, in invigilators and staff members verified her documents by taking fingerprints, photograph and copy of passport and venue card before taking the written test. After completion of verification process, when complainant appeared in listening module she found that there are some changes in pattern of exam for which she was totally unaware and for this reason complainant was not able to given her best while attempting the listening module which affects her overall score rate. Opposite parties through which complainant registered herself for IELTS exam and hire their services for her counseling and guidance in IELTS exam does not provide any DIRECT/USEFULL information regarding change in the pattern of Listening Module to the complainant which clearly prove the deficiency of services on the part of opposite parties. Moreover the latest book (no.13) IDP Education Pvt. Ltd. also has the example part, so the complainant prepared according to the syllabus only.  As per the rules, regulations and instructions, IDP Education Pvt. Ltd/opposite parties had not delivered the crystal clear information to complainant from their own part with whom opposite parties had contracted. The primary duty of opposite parties is to counseling and providing guidance services to students desirous of pursuing education at overseas from this kind of irresponsible behavior opposite parties shows that how much responsibility they take on their own part for the betterment of the students/candidates. Acknowledgement letter or venue card received by the complainant also silent about the changes in the pattern of listening module. On 26.11.2020, when complainant appeared for speaking module, she again brings her concern of changes in pattern before authority, but all in vain. On account of the opposite parties aforesaid dereliction of duty, failure of poor communication and negligence to provide proper service complainant has suffered loss both monetary as well as mentally and incurred various expenses. The complainant is professionally working lady she had devoted her precious time for the preparation and gave examination. The complainant requested the opposite parties many times to admit his rightful claim, but they refused. Hence, this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to amount of Rs.14,000/- which was charged from the complainant.

b)      To pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and pain suffered by complainant.

c)       The amount of Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges to complainant.

d)      And any other relief to which this Hon’ble Consumer Commission, Moga may deem fit be granted in the interest of justice and equity.       

2.       Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the instant complaint as filed by the complainant, qua the opposite parties is misconceived, not maintainable and an abuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed as such. The instant complaint as filed by the complainant, qua the opposite parties is misconceived, not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer of opposite parties as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as amended upto date, which reads as under:-

(7) "consumer" means any person who—

(i)      buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii)     hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,—

(a) the expression "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;

(b) the expressions "buys any goods" and "hires or avails any services" includes offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing;

          Further alleges that instant complaint filed by the complainant qua the opposite parties is not maintainable in view of the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maharishi Dayanand University V/s Surjeet Kaur reported as 2010 (11) SCC 159 = 2010(2) CPC 696 SC wherein it has categorically held that education is not a commodity and educational institutes are not providing any kind of service, therefore in matter if admissions, fees etc, there cannot be deficiency of service. Such matters are not to be entertained under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The said dicta has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy & anr V/s Ellen Charitable Trust & ors reported as 2012 (3) CPC 615 and also in SLP (Civil) No.13472 of 2012 dated 07.05.2012 in case of “Chairman Desh Bhagat Dental College V/s Archita Devi. Same view has been taken by the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh vide its order dated 06.12.2013 in A/305/2010 title as “The Principal SUSCET V/s Babanpreet Kaur” and the Hon’bel State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, vide its orders dated 25.07.2013 in FA/231/2013 titled as “The Chairman Indo Global College V/s Dheeraj Kaushal. Further in case of instant opposite parties, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in Appeal titled as “IDP V/s Gaganpreet Kaur has taken the same view and as such the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed as such. On merits, it is admitted to the extent of the conduct of the IELTs exam by opposite parties as the International Channel Partner of IELTs. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

3.       In order to  prove  his  case, the complainant has tendered into evidence  his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand,  to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Smt.Kanchan W/o Sh.Ramandeep Singh, Authorized Signatory of M/s IDP Education India Pvt. Ltd. Ex.OPs1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OPs1 to Ex.OPs and closed the evidence.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and gone through the documents placed on record.

6.       During the course of arguments, both the ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as Opposite Parties have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in written reply respectively. The complainant hired the services of opposite parties on 14.11.2020 by registering her name at official website of opposite party i.e. IDP Education Pvt. Ltd. for IELTS Examination to be held on 21.11.2020. On 14.11.2020 complainant deposited the requisite fee of Rs.14000/- with opposite parties. The complainant received acknowledgement letter of venue card from opposite parties, through e-mail mentioning that the test of writing, reading and listening modules will be held on 21.11.2020 at Royal Marriage Palace Moga and test of speaking module on 26.11.2020 at Hotel Gold Coast, Moga. On 21.11.2020 complainant reached at the given venue for appearing in test. After completion of verification process, when complainant appeared in listening module she found that there are some changes in pattern of exam for which she was totally unaware and for this reason complainant was not able to given her best while attempting the listening module which affects her overall score rate. Opposite parties through which complainant registered herself for IELTS exam and hire their services for her counseling and guidance in IELTS exam does not provide any DIRECT/USEFULL information regarding change in the pattern of Listening Module to the complainant. Moreover the latest book (no.13) IDP Education Pvt. Ltd. also has the example part, so the complainant prepared according to the syllabus only.  As per the rules, regulations and instructions, IDP Education Pvt. Ltd/opposite parties had not delivered the crystal clear information to complainant. On 26.11.2020, when complainant appeared for speaking module, she again brings her concern of changes in pattern before authority, but all in vain. On account of the opposite parties aforesaid dereliction of duty, failure of poor communication and negligence to provide proper service complainant has suffered loss both monetary as well as mentally and incurred various expenses.

7.       On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of ld. counsel for the complainant on the ground that instant complaint filed by the complainant qua the opposite parties is not maintainable in view of the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maharishi Dayanand University V/s Surjeet Kaur reported as 2010 (11) SCC 159 = 2010(2) CPC 696 SC wherein it has categorically held that education is not a commodity and educational institutes are not providing any kind of service, therefore in matter if admissions, fees etc, there cannot be deficiency of service. Such matters are not to be entertained under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The said dicta has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy & anr V/s Ellen Charitable Trust & ors reported as 2012 (3) CPC 615 and also in SLP (Civil) No.13472 of 2012 dated 07.05.2012 in case of “Chairman Desh Bhagat Dental College V/s Archita Devi. Same view has been taken by the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh vide its order dated 06.12.2013 in A/305/2010 title as “The Principal SUSCET V/s Babanpreet Kaur” and the Hon’bel State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, vide its orders dated 25.07.2013 in FA/231/2013 titled as “The Chairman Indo Global College V/s Dheeraj Kaushal. Further in case of instant opposite parties, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in Appeal titled as “IDP V/s Gaganpreet Kaur has taken the same view and as such the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed as such.

8.       The contention raised by Opposite Party is that the complainant is not a consumer of opposite parties as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as amended upto date.           Moreover, opposite parties in his defence referred the judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh. The other contention of ld. counsel for the opposite parties before us is that this is an education matter which falls outside the domain of Consumer Commission. Now, we are mainly concerned in this case with this point as to whether the education matter is cognizable by Consumer Commission or not. The Apex Court has held in "Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur" 2010(2)CPC- 696(SC) that Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to direct the University to issue degree. Respondent as a student is neither a consumer nor is the appellant rendering any service. Rule of estoppels will also not apply against statute. The matter has also been settled by the Apex Court in "P.T. Koshy & another Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & others" 2012 (3) CPC-615 that in view of the judgment of this Court in Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010(11) SCC 159= CPC 696 S.C, 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 in service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is, thus, plain by the settled law of the Apex Court that education is not a commodity and educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, hence in matter of admission, fees, etc., there cannot be any question of deficiency in service, as recognized by Consumer Protection Act,1986. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Considering the ratio laid down in the above referred judgments that the education is not commodity and service imparting education institution cannot be held to be service provider and student cannot be said to be a consumer. Therefore, consumer court has no jurisdiction to dealt with the matter pertaining to the deficiency of service in education.

9.       Hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the complaint and the same stands dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

10.     Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

          This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in`         this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.

Announced in Open Commission.