These 4 Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by Rabindra Bharati University (for short “the University”), the sole Opposite Party in the Complaints under the Act, are directed against separate orders, all dated 19.12.2016, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeals No. 886, 887, 888 & 889 of 2015 respectively.  By the impugned orders, the State Commission has affirmed the orders dated 17.07.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Pgs, Barasat (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Cases No. 599, 600, 601 & 610 of 2014. 

In the first instance, while accepting the Complaints, filed by the Respondents herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the University in holding the Post Graduate Diploma Course in NGO Management for the Academic Session 2011-12, for which they had paid the total course fee amounting to ₹15,000/- at a short notice, and, thus, depriving them of a due notice to get ready to take the said examination, the District Forum had directed the University to pay to each of the Complainants a sum of ₹15,000/-, along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaints till realization, as also ₹5,000/- as litigation costs.  The District Forum had also directed that if the said amounts were not paid to the Complainants within one month from the date of its orders, the University shall be liable to deposit in the State Consumer Welfare Fund a sum of ₹100/- per day as punitive damages from the date of the said orders till realization. 

Upon notice, the Respondents/Complainants are represented by their Counsel.

At the outset, learned Counsel appearing for the University has brought to our notice two orders, dated 09.08.2012 and 29.04.2013, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. [Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 22532/2012] and Prof. K.K. Ramachandran v. S. Krishnaswamy & Anr. [Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 3789/2012], respectively.   By the said orders, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159, wherein all earlier judgments on the issue had been referred to, the educational institutions were not providing any kind of service and, therefore, in the matter of admission, fees etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency of service and, hence, such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Fora under the Act.

Per contra, in support of his stand that the orders passed by Fora below were justified, learned Counsel appearing for the Complainants has relied upon the following judgments/orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Commission:

Supreme Court Judgments

1. Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital v. Bhupesh Khurana, 2009 (4) SCC 484;

    

2. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi, 2000 (1) SCC 98;

    

3. Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, 2004 (5) SCC 65; and

    

4. Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, 1994 (1) SCC 243.

National Commission orders

1. Ajay Kumar v. L.N. Mithila University and Ors. (Revision Petition No. 4072 of 2014) – SLP filed, being SLP (C) No.19424 of 2017, was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 11.08.2017.

    

2. Mody University of Science and Technology & Ors. V. Megha Gupta (Revision Petition No. 3288 of 2016) – No SLP was filed against this order;

    

3. Jai Kumar Mittal v. Brilliant Tutorials, 2005 (4) CPJ 156 (NC);

    

4. Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training v. Ashwini G. (Revision Petition No.917 of 2009);

    

5. Indian Institute of Hotel Management v. Reshmi Dutta (Revision Petition No. 2352 of 2010);

    

6. WLC College India Ltd. v. Ajay S. Bhatt, III (2016) CPJ 280 (NC); and

    

7. Deputy Registrar (Colleges) v. Ruchika Jain, III (2006) CPJ 343 (NC).

    

   Further, making a valiant attempt to convince us that apart from the fact that decisions in P.T. Koshy (supra) and Prof. K.K. Ramachandran, relied upon by Counsel appearing for the University, are clearly distinguishable on facts, learned Counsel has submitted that in the afore-noted two decisions the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital (supra), wherein certain decisions rendered by the Constitution Bench have been referred to, has not been noticed and, therefore, the decisions cited on behalf of the University, being per-incurium, are not binding on us.

   Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record, including the precedents cited by them in support of their rival stands, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with learned Counsel for the Complainants.

   As noted above, the decisions of the Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy (supra) and Prof. K.K. Ramachandran (supra) are directly on the point arising for consideration in these cases and have been rendered after the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital (supra).  We are bound by the ratio of both the decisions.

   Accordingly, following the afore-noted decisions in P.T. Koshy (supra) and Prof. K.K. Ramachandran (supra), the Revision Petitions are allowed; the impugned orders are set aside; and the Complaints are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.