Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/740/2015

Rambabu Sharma s/o Badrinarian Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jaipur Natiosnal University through Director - Opp.Party(s)

H.S.Mahala

11 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 740 /2015

 

Rambabu Sharma s/o Badrinarayan Sharma r/o Plot no. 75/255 Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur.

 

Vs.

 

Jaipur National University,Jaipur main campus,Jagatpura, Jaipur.

 

 

Date of Order 11.3.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr. H.S. Mahala counsel for the appellant

Mr.Sanjeev Arora counsel for the respondent

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned DCF, Jaipur 2^nd dated 25.5.2015 whereby the complaint has been partially allowed.

 

The contention of the appellant is that whole tution fee should have been refunded as the respondents were not having the requisite sanction.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that for the time being their sanction was withdrawn which was restored vide order dated 25.1.2012. Judgments of Hon'ble High Court has also been placed on record. His further contention is that student is not a 'consumer' and this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as there is no 'consumer dispute' and further more his contention is that the appellant has attended the classes for more than one month and thereafter he was not entitled for refund of tution fees.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as the original record of the case.

3

 

The court below has rightly held that there is no dispute about the fact that vide order dated 25.1.2012 the sanction of Jaipur National University has been restored and judgment of the Hon'ble High Court has also been placed on record for the same effect. Hence, the contention of the appellant that the respondents were not having sanction is groundless. Further as per rules of the University after commencement of the classes within 30 days tution fee could be refunded upto 50% but here in the present case the case of the appellant is that he has attended the classes for more than 30 days hence, tution fee was not refundable and the court below has rightly ordered for refund of caution money, library fee etc.

 

The respondent has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 2299/2014 passed on 18.11.2015 ( NIMS Medical college Vs. Harsh Mathur ) in which the court has clearly held as under:

 

“As regards the maintainability the contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable as the orders have been passed in utter disregard of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of P.T.Koshy & anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & ors. In Special Leave Petition

4

 

 

no. 22532/2012 decided on 9.8.2012 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

 

“In view of the judgment of this court 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 view of the above,we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition. Thus the special leave petition is dismissed”

 

From the above, it is clear that both the foras below have acted beyond jurisdiction in entertaining and allowing the complaint. As such impugned order cannot be sustained.”

 

 

Further reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition no. 3075/2015 (Maniklal Verma Govt. College Vs. Satyanarayan Sharma ) decided on 8.3.2016 and III (2014) CPJ 120 (NC)

5

 

Regional Institute of Cooperative Management Vs. Naveen Kumar Chaudhary.

 

In view of the above the present matter is not in jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora and on this ground also this appeal is liable to be rejected.

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm