By Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:

            This is a complaint preferred under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

            2.  Facts of the case in brief:-

              The Complainant was a student of the KMCT Medical College for the MBBS Course conducted by the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant had completed the course in the year 2017.  Now the Complainant is waiting ready for joining post-graduation course in U. K.  At the time of joining the MBBS Course in 2010, as sought by the Opposite Parties, Complainant and other students of the course were forced to sign a bond in favour of the Opposite Parties stating that on completion of the course the Complainant and other students should serve as doctors in the Opposite Party Hospital for a meager amount of salary and on violation of the provision in the bond, the Complainant and other students were required to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the Opposite Party Medical College.  As the Complainant got admission in U.K as aforesaid and as she had to get the Credential Verification Certificate and when she applied for the same, the Opposite Parties told that the Credential Verification Certificate could be given to the Complainant only on cancellation of the bond by paying Rs.5,25,000/- to the Opposite Party Hospital.  As a consequence and as she was badly in need of the Certificate, on 04.11.2022, the Complainant paid Rs.4,50,000/- to the account as told by the second Opposite Party, by bank transfer.  For the balance amount of Rs.75,000/-, the Complainant, on  05.12.2022, gave a post-dated cheque numbering 515754 dated 05.02.2023 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Kalpetta to the first Opposite Party Medical College.  The act of the Opposite Parties receiving bond and the subsequent act of breaking the bond and accepting Rs.4,50,000/- from the Complainant are illegal.  The Complainant was forced to sign the bond only for getting admission and the amount and cheque were given only for getting the Credential Certificate.  The acts of the Opposite Parties in taking bond, receiving Rs.4,50,000/- and getting post-dated cheque for Rs.75,000/- are illegal and deficiency in service from the part of the Opposite Parties.  Considering all these, the Complainant had sent an Advocate’s Notice dated 31.12.2022 demanding refund of Rs.4,50,000/- together with interest @ 12% w.e.f 04.11.2022 and return of the post-dated cheque. Though the notice  was received by the second Opposite Party, they did not return the amount and the cheque to the Complainant.  They have not even sent a Reply to the Lawyer Notice.  Hence, this complaint with the following prayers.

1) To direct the Opposite Parties to return Rs.4,50,000/- together with interest @ 12% w.e.f 04.11.2022 and the post-dated cheque No.515754 for Rs.75,000/- dated 05.02.2023

2) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony.

3)  To direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.25,000/- towards cost of this litigation etc…

            3.  Notices were served to Opposite Parties but they did not appear before the Commission and hence they were set ex-parte.

            4.  Proof affidavit was filed by the Complainant, Exts.A1 and A2 were marked from her side and she was examined as PW1.

            5.  Considering the complaint, affidavit, documents marked and the oral evidence adduced, Commission raised the following points consideration:-

1. Whether the Complaint is legally maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act…?
2. Whether there has been deficiency/unfair trade practice in service from the part of the Opposite Parties..?
3. Relief and Cost..?

6.  Point No.1:-  On going through the complaint, it is seen that the complaint is related to education.  The subject matter of the complaint is not related to goods.  The allegation of the complainant is that there has been deficiency in service from the part of the Opposite Parties.  Therefore, a brief discussion of the term “service” is seen inevitable in this context.  Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 has defined the term “service”.  According to section 2(42) “service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, telecom, boarding or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.  In the above definition, though banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, telecom, boarding or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information etc are included, the very important subject education is seen not included specifically.  So Commission is of the view that the legislative intention was to exclude the subject “education” from the definition of service.

7.  Moreover, in Revision Petition No.2006 of 2019 filed before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Principal LDRP Institute of Technology and Research Vs Apoorv Sharma, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 11.10.2022 in its judgment has held that educational institutions do not come under the purview of Cosnumer Protection Act, as “Education” is not a service –excluding coaching centres.

8.  Therefore, considering section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No.2006 of 2022, dated 11.10.2022, this complaint is not legally maintainable before this Commission as education is not considered to be a service as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  But, the Complainant shall be at liberty to seek other legal remedy approaching other appropriate legal Forum.  As this complaint is seen not legally maintainable, Point No.2 and 3 has no relevance.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed without cost as it is not legally maintainable.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 20^th day of May 2023.

Date of Filing:-07.02.2023.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:-

PW1.              Ashitha Moideen.                                       Doctor.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

                        Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.                  Copy of Statement of Account of Ashitha Moideen. K for the

period of 01.10.2022 to 03.02.2023.

A2.                  Copy of Lawyer Notice.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-

                        Nil.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

                                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.