Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/871

GGSIPU - Complainant(s)

Versus

JATIN SEGHAL - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jan 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision: 06.01.2016

First Appeal No. 871/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 28.07.2012 passed in complaint case No. 51/2008 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North) Tis Hazari, Delhi)

In the matter of:

The Registrar

Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University

Sector-16-C, Dwarka

Delhi-110006                                                  Appellant

 

Versus

 

Mr. Jatin Seghal

S/o Sh. S.K.Seghal

R/o 789 Dr. Mukharjee Nagar

New Delhi-110009                                                     Respondent

                                                                  

                                                                  

CORAM

 

JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL                 -                       President

SALMA NOOR                                    -                       Member

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

SALMA NOOR – MEMBER

 

1.      By this appeal, appellant has impugned the order dt. 28.07.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum (North) Tis Hazari, Delhi. Vide impugned order the appellant herein is directed to refund to the respondent/complainant herein an amount of Rs. 58,000/- with simple interest @ 6% p.a. on the amount deposited by him till the date of its payment. Ld. District Forum also directed to pay to the respondent/complainant an amount of Rs. 2000/- as cost.
2.      Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant herein i.e. before Ld. District Forum had applied for admission in MCA Course for the year 2007-2008 of appellant/OP University. Since he had appeared in B.Sc Maths (Hons.) examination of the Delhi University, result of which was awaited he was given provisional admission to the MCA Course of university. On such provisional admission the complainant deposited Rs. 58,000/- as fee with appellant/OP University on 18.06.2007. It has alleged by the complainant that the eligibility of the appellant taking admission of the MCA course was that the complainant had to secure 50% marks in the graduation. The graduation result of the complainant was declared in August 2007 wherein he secured only 47.22% marks. According to the eligibility condition he was not eligible for admission in MCA course of the appellant/OP University. Therefore, he had applied for refund of the fee. The appellant/OP declined to refund the fee. Aggrieved by the refusal of the appellant/OP for not refunding the fee respondent/complainant had filed the complaint before the District Forum for refund of fee of Rs. 58,000/- alongwith costs and compensation.
3.      Appellant/OP had contested the case. It was not disputed by the appellant/OP that the complainant was given provisional admission to MCA course of the OP/appellant University on 18.06.2007 and deposited a sum of Rs. 58,000/- as fee. It was also not disputed that the complainant in graduation had secured 47.22% marks, therefore, he was not eligible for admission in MCA course in the appellant/OP University. It is also alleged by the appellant/OP that the complainant had given an affidavit to the effect that if he would not secure 50% marks in the graduation his admission to MCA course in appellant/OP University would automatically got cancelled and full fee deposited by him would be forfeited. It was alleged that the complainant had since secured 47.22% marks in the graduation, his fee stood automatically forfeited, therefore, he was not entitled for relief claimed by him.
4.      Both the parties had led their evidences by way of affidavits before the Ld. District Forum. After going through the pleadings and the evidences of the parties, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint and passed the following order:

“In view of the legal position, we are of the view that OP is liable to refund the amount of Rs. 58,000/- deposited by the complainant. Accordingly, we direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs. 58,000/-, the fee deposited by the complainant, with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit of fee till the payment is made to the complainant. The OP shall also pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- to the complainant as costs. The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of this order.”

 

5.      Aggrieved with the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Forum the appellant/OP filed the present appeal.
6.      We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7.      It is not necessary to go into merits of the case because present is a case of refund of the fee and there are latest judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it has been held that the educational institutions i.e. Universities/Boards are not providing any kind of service rather they perform the statutory duties.
8.      The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (2) CPC 696 SC.; Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha 2010 (1) CLT 255 (SC) as well as P.T.Koshy & Anr. V. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC) has held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions imparting education 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.
9.      The Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1684/2009 titled as Registrar Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University V/s Tanvi decided on 29.01.2015 also held that a student is not a ‘consumer’. Relying upon the aforesaid cases of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble National Commission has also held that the educational institutions are not providing any kind of service. Therefore, in matter of admission, fee etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Fora under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
10.  In view of the above discussion, present appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.07.2012 passed in complaint cases No. 51/2008 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North) Tis Hazari, Delhi is set aside. No order as to costs.
11. The complainant shall be at liberty to seek his grievances before the appropriate Forum/Civil Court in accordance with law. The complainant can seek help for condonation of delay in accordance with law laid down in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute 1995 (3) SCC 583.
12. Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
13.  FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

(JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL)

3270399981102.  

 

 

(SALMA NOOR)​

MEMBER