APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON : 20^TH APRIL 2017

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 14.12.2016, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1516/2016, “Siddhi Vinayak College of Science & Higher Education vs. Jitender Singh Rathore,” and the order dated 15.01.2015 passed by the same Commission in Appeal No. 73/2011, between the same parties, vide which, the said appeals were ordered to be dismissed.

2.       The facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent Jitender Singh Rathore deposited a sum of ₹45,500/- with the opposite party (OP) Siddhi Vinayak College of Science & Higher Education, which is an educational institute, affiliated to the Rajasthan Technical University and other institutions, and running various courses at District Alwar (Rajasthan), as stated in the consumer complaint.  The complainant got admission in the MBA course of the OP and deposited a sum of ₹45,500/- with the stipulation that he will attend classes free of cost for the first seven days and in case, he wanted to discontinue after seven days, the fee deposited by him shall be returned to him, after deducting a sum of ₹5,500/-.  The complainant has stated that he attended the studies at the institute for three days only, whereafter he was not satisfied and he requested the OP to return the amount deposited by him, but they did not oblige, despite several requests.  The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking the return of the amount deposited by him alongwith interest @24% on the same.

3.       In their reply filed before the District Forum, the petitioner/OP submitted that there was no such provision that classes for 7 days were given on demonstration basis and also, there was no provision for the refund of the fees, if a student wanted to discontinue the studies.  The OP mentioned that as per the rules and regulations of the Rajasthan Technical University (RTU), the fee was not to be refunded.

4.       The District Forum after considering the averments of the parties, decided the consumer complaint on 2.12.2010 and directed that the petitioner/OP shall refund a sum of ₹40,000/- to the complainant, after deducting a sum of ₹5500/- from the deposited fees.  The petitioner was also directed to pay ₹3000/- as cost and compensation.  Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the petitioner/OP challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission dismissed the appeal vide order dated 15.01.2015.  There is nothing on record to say that any further appeal was filed by the OP against the order dated 15.01.2015 of the State Commission.  Thereafter, an execution petition was filed by the complainant before the District Forum, which was decided by them vide order dated 15.09.2016, and it was directed that the amount payable in terms of the order of the District Forum dated 2.12.2010, duly confirmed vide order of the State Commission dated 15.01.2015 alongwith interest, be attached by the Axis Bank from the account of the petitioner/OP and produced before the District Forum on 17.10.2016 through banker cheque.  However, on an application filed before the District Forum, the matter was heard again and vide order dated 16.11.2016, attachments warrants were directed to be issued by the District Forum.  Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner/OP approached the State Commission by way of an appeal, but the said appeal having been dismissed by the State Commission vide order dated 14.12.2016, the petitioner/OP is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition. 

5.       During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in the present revision petition, the petitioner was challenging both the orders dated 15.01.2015 and 14.12.2016 passed by the State Commission, Jaipur.  The learned counsel could not explain as to why the order dated 15.01.2015 had not been challenged earlier.  In response to a query from the Bench, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that they had not filed any application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition against the order dated 15.01.2015 of the State Commission.

6.       It is quite evident from the material on record that the order dated 15.01.2015 passed by the State Commission has attained finality already.  The said order was passed in the presence of the advocate of the petitioner.  In case, the petitioner was aggrieved in any manner against the said order, they could have approached the National Commission by way of a revision petition, but admittedly, they do not do so.  The order dated 15.01.2015 has, therefore, become final.  The petitioner/OP has, therefore, no right to challenge the main order during the execution proceedings.  The petitioner has not been able to give any reasons as to how the orders passed in the execution proceedings by the State Commission or the District Forum are bad in the eyes of law.

7.       The learned counsel submitted during hearing before us that the complainant did not come under the category of ‘consumer’, because as per some judgments given by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the subject of education does not come under the category of service and hence, the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 were not applicable in the present case.  This contention of the petitioner/OP cannot be taken into consideration at the stage, because they should have challenged the order of the State Commission dated 15.01.2015 at the appropriate time.  In the light of these facts, it is held that there is no merit in this revision petition, as the order dated 15.01.2015 has attained finality. The execution proceedings are aimed at giving effect to the said order.  This revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and the orders passed by the Consumer Fora below are upheld.  There shall be no order as to costs.