DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW

CASE No.622 of 2013

       Sri Praharsh Raina,

       R/o C-201, Marigold Apartment, 

       Ravindrapalli, Faizabad Road,

       Lucknow.

                                                                    ……Complainant

Versus

                  1. Manager,

                     ISBE’s Lucknow, India

                    The Indian Institute of Planning & Management,

                    16A, Ashok Marg, Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001.

                   India.

                  2. Director,

                     The Indian Institute of Planning & Management,

                     Level-0, IIPM Campus,

                     Satbari, Chandan Haula,

                     Chattarpur Road, New Delhi-110074.

                     India.

                                                                               .......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 Rs.1,09,400.00 and for compensation etc.

          The case in brief of the Complainant is that the Complainant took admission in the institution of OP No.1 in the MBA course and deposited Rs.39,400.00. The parents of the Complainant did not like the campus of Chandigarh, hence they requested the OP No.1 for Delhi Campus. When the Complainant’s parents contacted OP No.2 for admission then OP No.2 asked them to deposit Rs.70,000.00 which they did. Subsequently, the Complainant came to know that the OPs

-2-

institute was not certified, hence the Complainant asked for refund of the amount deposited by him but till date no refund was made, hence this 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 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 OPs being educational institutions, are 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.

          (Anju Awasthy)                               (Vijai Varma)

                  Member                                            President    Dated: 1    June, 2015