Delhi

West Delhi

CC/13/422

AJAY KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

KHATU SHYAM INSTITUTE - Opp.Party(s)

20 Sep 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                                         Date of institution      16.7.13

Case. No.422 /13                                                                                               Date of order:                 20.9.16

 

In the matter of

 

Ajay Kumar,

Ambuja Cements,

Dhoon Manik Pur, & Badpura,

NTPC Road, Dadri,

Gautam Budh Ngar (U.P.)                                                                   COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

Khatu Shyam Institute of

Technology & Management Pvt. Ltd.,

511, TC Jaina Tower-III, LSC,

A-1, Janak Puri,

New Delhi-58.                                                                                     OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI (PRESIDENT)

 

 

            The present complaint is brought by Ajay Kumar, complainant against  Khatu Shyam Institute of Technology & Management, Opposite Party u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 for  seeking direction to the Opposite Party  to refund fee and pay  compensation on account of loss of studies and precious time.  

            Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present complaint are that complainant took admission with the Opposite Party’s educational institute for persuing B.E./B.Tech  on payment of

-2-

requisite fee.  The Opposite Party at the time of personal interaction with the complainant told that the Opposite Party’s institute is approved by AICTE, DEC and UGC.    But later on complainant came to know that the Opposite Party gave wrong information  for promotion of their institute.   He requested the Opposite Party to refund  the fee. But they didn’t pay any heed.   Hence, the present complaint for direction to Opposite Party to refund the fee received by them and pay compensation on account of mental harassment , loss of studies and  deficiency in service.

 

            After notice Opposite Party appeared and filed reply admitting that the complainant  took admission with the Opposite Party.  But denied that they mislead the complainant  and never told him that the Opposite Party is approved by DEC and UC.  Therefore, there is no  deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

The parties  were asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit.  The complainant in support of their case filed affidavit dated  21.3.14, wherein he once again prayed for directions to the Opposite Party to refund fee and pay compensation on account of loss of studies and time .In support of his case he filed copy of receipts dated  7.1.13, 18.2.12 and 3.9.12 copy of e-mails dated 7.12.12, 20.2.13 , 11.7.13 and  14.7.13  and copies of question papers.    The Opposite Party filed affidavit of Ashish Bhatia dated 18.9.15 reiterating their stand taken in the reply and controverting the claim of the complainant.  The Opposite party in support of their version filed copy of application form and  receipts of courier. 

 

            We have heard parties and appraised material on record carefully   We are of the opinion that the main controversy/issue involved is “whether Ajay Kumar , complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and the Opposite Party is a service provider”?

 

      These issues have been dealt in detail by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case reported as MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY VS SURJEET KAUR 2010 (11)Supreme Court Cases 159.  Wherein it is held that education is not a commodity. The educational institutionals are not service providers. Therefore the students are not consumers. Similar view is taken by another bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in special leave petition no22532/12 titled P.T.KOSHY& ANR VS ELLEN

-3-

CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS decided on 9.8.12.  Similar view is taken by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition no 1684/2009 titled as REGISTRAR ,GGS INDERAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY VS MISS TANVI decided on 29.1.2015 ,in Revision Petition No 4335/14 titled as Mayank Tiwari vs  Fiitjee decided on 8.12.14, in Revision Petition No 3365/2006 titled FIITJEE VS DR.(MRS) MINATHI RATH, in Revision Petition No 1805/2007 titled FITJEE VS B.B.POPLI, Revision Petition No 3496/2006 P.T.Education vs Dr MINATHI and in Revision Petition No 2660/2007  all decided on 14.11.11 by common order .   Similar view is also taken by Hon’ble  State Commission of Chandigarh in Appeal no 244/2014 titled M/s fiitjee ltd vs Mayank Tiwari decided on 23.9.14.

       Similar are the facts of the present case .The complainant took admission with opposite party for persuing BE/BTech with opposite Party’s institute .  The opposite party is giving education. Therefore as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court,  Hon’ble National Commission and  Hon’ble State Commission of Chandigarh time and again education is not a commodity and the opposite party is not service provider and the  student is not a consumer under the  Consumer Protection Act.      Therefore, complaint is not maintainable. Resultantly  the complaint is dismissed.

Order pronounced on :20.09.2016

 

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.

 

Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                               (URMILA GUPTA)                   (R.S.  BAGRI)

  MEMBER                                             MEMBER                               PRESIDENT