CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.624/2009
SHAKEB HUSAIN
S/O PROF. MOHD. SHAHID HUSAIN,
HOUSE NO. 122, UTTARAKHAD,
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY,
NEW DELHI- 110067 …..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LEARNING IN MANAGEMENT, BUSINESS SCHOOL
THROUGH IT’S DIRECTOR
SHRI JAGJIT SINGH BEDI
HAVING IT’S REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
B-11/61, MCIE, MATHURA ROAD,
NEAR BADARPUR BORDER,
NEW DELHI - 110044. …..RESPONDENT
- SHRI VINAY RAI,
FOUNDER/ MANAGING DIRECTOR,
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LEARINING IN MANAGEMENT, BUSINESS SCHOOL
B-11/61, MCIE, MATHURA ROAD,
NEAR BADARPUR BORDER,
NEW DELHI – 110044. …..RESPONDENT
- SHRI JAGJIT SINGH BEDI,
B-11/61, MCIE, MATHURA ROAD,
NEAR BADARPUR BORDER,
NEW DELHI – 110044.…..RESPONDENT
- PUNJAB TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY,
JALLANDHAR- KAPURTHALA ROAD,
KAPURTHALA, PUNJAB. …..RESPONDENT
- STATE BANK OF INDIA
J.N.U., NEW BRANCH,
NEW DELH – 110067. …..RESPONDENT
Date of Institution-25.08.2009
Date of Order-08/02/2023
O R D E R
RITU GARODIA-MEMBER
The brief facts of complaint are that the complainant on receiving pamphlets and prospectus from IILM Business School visited the institute on 8.3.2008. It was mentioned in the pamphlets, prospectus and sign boards at the Business School that IILM Business School is affiliated to Punjab Technical University Jalandhar for running full time regular MBA Course.
On 24.3.2008, the complainant paid Rs. 10,000/- as registration fees for admission in MBA Programme. He was also given a loan letter to facilitate him in getting education loan. On 5.4.2008, the complainant paid Rs. 9,000/- towards tuition fees and security deposit.
On 11.8.2008, an article appeared in newspaper Metro Now that showed the institute was not affiliated to Punjab Technical University. The State Bank of India also denied education loan on the same ground in September, 2008. The website of Punjab Technical University did not contain the name of IILM Business School in the list of affiliated colleges.
On 16.5.2009, the complainant sent a legal notice to OP1, OP2 and OP3. On 12.6.2009, the defendants replied to the legal notice. The complainant alleges that the institute demanded a fees of Rs. 3,80,000/- out of which he paid Rs. 1,00,150/- towards fees. The complainant prays for refund of amount paid, and compensation along with litigation cost.
OP1 to OP3 in their reply have stated that OP is a public charitable trust which runs educational institution providing high class professional education. It is submitted that the institute is an approved learning centre of Punjab Technical University for running Management programmes.
It is submitted that Mr.Jagjit Singh Bedi and Mr.VinayRai who have been impleaded as OP2 and OP3 are not involved with the day to day functioning of the institute.
OP1 submits that complainant was admitted in the July 2008. The complainant attended a detailed counselling programme wherein he was shown documents and certificates received by OP1 from Punjab Technical University to run MBA and BBA Programme. It is alleged that complainant took admission after full satisfaction. The complainant was also given a laptop worth Rs. 50,000/-, a corporate suit and study materials. It is alleged that complainant was never sincere attending the classes.
OP received a legal notice in May 2009, and sent a reply dated 12.6.2009. OP has denied the list filed by complainant and filed another printout from the official website of Punjab Technical University recognizing it as affiliated institute. OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.
OP4 in its written statement has stated that it is a State Government University established by Govt. of Punjab. OP4 further states that it is recognized under Section 2(F) of UGC Act. OP4 is running the distant education programme in a unique public private partnership model. In this model, the University has retained the control of all its essential functions including academics, course material, testing, evaluation, certification and governance whereas the private parties are allocated allied functions such as database management, management information system, training, call centre, promotions, logistics and assistance to University wherever they desire etc.
It was further stated that OP1 is a authorized learning centre for running distance education programme for BBA and MBA Courses. However, OP1 was not authorized for running post graduate programme in Entrepreneurship and Business (Industry Integrated).
OP5 in its written statement states that complainant has not filed any document showing any grievance against the bank and no relief has been claimed against OP5.
Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit and has exhibited the following documents:-
- Copy of the prospectus is exhibited as Exhibit-A/1.
- Copy of receipt is exhibited as Exhibit-A/2.
- Copy of loan letter is exhibited as Exhibit-A/3.
- Copy of receipt is exhibited as Exhibit-A/4.
- Copy of newspaper article is exhibited as Exhibit-A/5.
- Copy of list of Punjab Technical University is exhibited as Exhibit-A/6.
- Copy of legal notice is exhibited as Exhibit-A/7.
- Copy of reply is exhibited as Exhibit-A/8.
OP1 has filed evidence by way of affidavit and has exhibited the following documents:-
- Copy of admission letter is exhibited as Exhibit OPW1/1.
- Copy of letter from Punjab Technical University is exhibited as Exhibit OPW1/2.
- Copy of registration form is exhibited as Exhibit OPW1/3.
- Copy of identity Card is exhibited as Exhibit OPW1/4.
- Reply of legal notice is exhibited as Exhibit OPW1/5.
- Print out from the official website of Punjab Technical University is exhibited as Exhibit OPW1/6.
OP4 has filed evidence by way of affidavit and has exhibited the following documents:-
- Copy of information available on website of the Punjab Technical University is annexed as Annexure OP-4/1.
- Fee chargeable by the Punjab Technical University is annexed as Annexure OP-4/2.
- Copy of notification issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development is annexed as Annexure OP-4/3.
- Print out from the official website of Punjab Technical University is annexed as Annexure OP-4/4.
The Commission has given a thoughtful consideration to material on record. The first issue that arises for consideration is whether the complaint is maintainable. Hon’ble National Commission in Manu Solanki Vs. Vinayaka Mission University and other connected cases, Consumer Case No. 261 of 2010 decided on 20.01.2020 has elaborated on the question of education being a service covered under Consumer Protection Act in the following manner “learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Revision Petitions No. 222 of 2015 vehemently contended that the Complainant had taken admission in B. Ed. Course of the Opposite Party on the assurance that the said college was recognized by National Council of Technical Education (NCTE) and affiliated with the Opposite Party No. 2, Uttrakhand Technical University, who subsequently came to know that the Institute was not recognized by NCTE and therefore sought for refund of the fees. Whether such an unfair trade practice post admission would fall within the ambit of the Act needs to be seen. As the Institution is imparting education though it has been not recognized by the National Council of Technical Education, it would not make any difference because it will be covered under the education. Thus, the said Institute would not be rendering any service as defined in the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”
Admittedly, the complainant is a student and has paid the fees to OP for education purposes. Considering the ratio laid down in the above referred judgment that education is not a commodity and institutions (recognized or unrecognized) imparting education cannot be service provider and a student cannot be a consumer, this Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the matters pertaining to deficiency in service in education. Hence, this complaint is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
