KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 704/2016
JUDGMENT DATED: 22.10.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 430/2014 of DCDRC, Malappuram)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Principal, Vedavyasa Institute of Technology, Karad Paramba P.O., Malappuram-673 632.
(By Advs. Rajmohan C.S & Rajeekanth R.S.)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
K.M. Rahul, S/o K.P. Gopinathan, Sreeragam, Neduva P.O., Malappuram.
(By Adv. G.S. Kalkura)
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant in C.C. No. 430/2014 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (for short “the District Commission”).
2. The respondent joined the institution of the appellant for B. Tech (computer science) course during 2012. In connection with the study of the respondent in the institution of the appellant, the respondent alleged deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.
3. The appellant appeared before the District Commission and filed version opposing the contentions of the respondent. Thereafter, both sides filed proof affidavit. Exhibits B1 to B15 were marked for the appellant and no documentary evidence was adduced for the respondent. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and directed the appellant to return the certificates of the respondent or to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- Rupees Five Lakhs only) as compensation. The appellant was also directed to refund Rs. 70,250/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty only) received by the appellant from the respondent as tuition fee. The District Commission further directed the appellant to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation for the mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed.
4. Heard.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since the institution of the appellant is an educational institution, the respondent would not come within the definition of ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“the National Commission” for short) in Manu Solanki and others Vs. Vinayaka Mission University reported in 1 (2020) CPJ 210 (NC) to support his argument. In paragraph 51 of the Manu Solanki and others (supra), the National Commission held as hereinbelow:-
“51. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion, tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport etc. except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act”.
6. The institution of the appellant is admittedly an institution imparting education. Therefore, in view of the decision of the National Commission in Manu Solanki and others (supra), the institution of the appellant would not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent is not maintainable. Therefore, the order passed by the District Commission is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order passed by the District Commission stands set aside. Since the complaint is found to be not maintainable, we are not entering into the merits of the case.
In the result, this appeal stands allowed, the order dated 30.07.2016 passed by the District Commission in C.C. No. 430/2014 stands set aside and the complaint stands dismissed as not maintainable.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
