1.      This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Land and Management Study Centre of Maharshi Dayanand University, against the order dated 02.11.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in ‘short State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.166 of 2013.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/complainant took admission in 7^th semester of 4^th year of LL.B. course,  on 28-31.08.2010. The respondent wrote letter to the opposite party/University for withdrawing his admission on 04.10.2010 and asked for refund of the fee paid by the respondent/complainant.  The opposite party did not refund the fee, therefore, the complaint No.1112/2011 was filed before the District Forum by the complainant.

3.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioner/opposite party on the ground that the prospectus clearly provides that fee would be refundable only within 30 days from taking admission and if request is received after a period of 30 days, the fee will not be refunded.  Moreover, it was stated that University was not a service provider and student was not a consumer as laid down by various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, the complaint was not maintainable.  The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur, (in short ‘the District Forum’) after considering the submissions of both the parties allowed the complaint as under on 12.12.2012:-

“16.  In view of the described position it is very much clear that the complainant after cancellation of recognition of OP approached the OP No.4 to stop the payment but he did not stop the payment and the recognition of OP has been cancelled even then not refunded Rs.25000+32000 Total 57000/-.  Hence, the OPs are liable for the deficiency in service.

ORDER

        Therefore, by accepting the complaint of the complainant the OPs are directed that they jointly and separately, within two months of this order, pay the complainant Rs.57000/- with 10% interest from the date of deposit of the amount and Rs.11000/- on account of compensation mental agony and Rs.3000/- for litigation expenses.”

4.      The opposite parties/ petitioners preferred an appeal bearing No.166 of 2013 before the State Commission, which was also dismissed vide order dated 2.11.2016 of the State Commission.

5.      Hence the present revision petition.

6.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 did not appear on the date of hearing.

7.      The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that both the fora below have not considered the settled position of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments that University was not a service provider and student was not a consumer.  The learned counsel referred to the following judgment:-

“Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159. It has been held that:

“Consumer Protection-consumer/Consumer dispute/Locus standi-Generally- University- if covered-Direction to issue BEd degree against rules of examination-Legality-Held, respondent as a student is neither consumer nor University is rendering any service to its students-Hence, Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain complaint-Respondent pursued MA and BEd simultaneously contrary to general rules of examination which prohibits pursuing two courses simultaneously-She had chosen to continue MA, while admission to BEd was cancelled-Without disclosing the said fact, respondent managed to appear for supplementary examinations for BEd, and passed, which results were withheld on detecting the mischief-Complaint filed for direction to award BEd degree- Held, claim of respondent was for a direction to appellant to act contrary to its own rules-No court has competence to issue direction contrary to law nor can direct an authority to act in contravention of statutory provisions-Hence, National Commission should not have issued direction to appellant to act contrary to statutory provisions-Also, respondent cannot plead estoppel either by conduct or against statute so as to gain any advantage just because she was erroneously allowed to appear in the examination-Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Ss. 2(1)(o) and 2(1)(d)(iii)”     

8.      Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that the District Forum has allowed 10% p.a. interest to be paid on the amount of refund, which is not justified in the current scenario of bank rates.  Moreover, when the interest has been awarded by the District Forum, the separate compensation of Rs.11,000/- (Rupees eleven thousand only) was not justified because interest is also in the form of compensation.

9.      It is wrong to say that the course was not recognized as the Bar Council of India recognized the course in the year 2012.

10.    On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant stated that the complainant came to know that the course was not recognized by the Bar Council of India.  In this situation, even if the complainant would have completed the course, she may not have got any advantage from this course therefore, to save the year of the complainant, she withdrew from the course and sought the refund of the fees paid.  In fact, when the course was not recognized, the petitioner University was not entitled to take admissions in the course. The complainant also fell prey to the machinations of the petitioners.  Both the fora below have given concurrent finding for refund of the fee along with interest and compensation.  Looking at the concurrent finding of the fora below, the scope under the revision petition is very limited and facts cannot be reassessed in the revision petition.

11.    I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and have examined the material on record.  First of all, it is clear that when the complainant took admission in 7^th semester, 4^th year of the LL.B. course, the same was not recognized by the Bar Council of India and the same was recognized by the Bar Council of India in the year 2012.  Thus, the complainant was fully justified in leaving the course and asking for refund of the fees.  The provision of the prospectus or any other rules of the University could not come in the way as the admission was itself illegal because of non- recognition of the course.  It is true that the University is not a service provider and student is not a consumer, but this decision is applicable to the educational institutions, which are recognized by either UGC, AICTE or any other statutory body.  This intent is clear from the above referred judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159 (supra) wherein the following has been observed:-

  “22.  The National Commission appears to have been swayed by the observations made in Bangalore Water Supply case.  The respondent as a student is neither a consumer nor is the appellant rendering any service.  The claim of the respondent to award BEd degree was almost in the nature of a relief praying for a direction to the appellant to act contrary to its own rules.  The National Commission, in our opinion, with the utmost respect to the reasoning given therein did not take into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and thus, arrived at a wrong conclusion”.

12.    So far as this course is concerned at the time of admission, this course was not recognized by the Bar Council of India, hence, at that time the institution would also not fall under the category of the educational institution entitled for the status of not being a service provider. 

13.    From the examination above, it is clear that at the time of admission, the course was not recognized and, therefore, the petitioner institution would be treated as service provider and therefore, the complaint was maintainable.  Thus the consumer fora were competent to decide the present complaint/appeal.  As both the fora below have given concurrent finding, the scope under the revision petition is quite limited and facts cannot be reassessed at this level as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following judgments:-

(1) Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, wherein the following has been observed:-

“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous)  interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora.”

(2) Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held the following:

“23.  The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity.  In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”     

14.    On the basis of above examination one thing is clear that the petitioner University has been found deficient and both the fora below have allowed refund of the fees paid when the student left the course as the course was not recognized by the Bar Council of India.  Relying on the above two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the facts cannot be reassessed at the level of revision petition.  In the facts and circumstance of the case, there seems to be no ground for allowing the petitioner to retain the fees.  Thus, order of refund of fees by the fora below is perfectly in order. However, the District Forum has awarded 10% p.a. interest and compensation of Rs.11,000/- apart from litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.  Looking at the scenario of the bank rates and the fact that the petitioners may not have earned interest on this amount, I deem it appropriate to allow only 6% p.a. instead of 10% p.a. interest as awarded by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission.  Moreover, when the interest is being provided, separate compensation of Rs.11,000/- is not justified.  However, the litigation cost is totally justified and is upheld.

15.    On the basis of the above discussion, the revision petition is partly allowed and the petitioners/opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of total fees paid to the opposite parties as ordered by the District Forum along with 6% p.a. interest instead of 10% p.a. as awarded by the District Forum.  The order of the District Forum relating to compensation of Rs.11,000/- is set aside.  The order relating to cost of litigation is upheld. Thus, the orders of the State Commission and District Forum stand modified.  The order of the District Forum as modified by this order be complied by the petitioner within a period of 45 days, failing which the amount to be paid to the complainant/respondent No.1 shall carry an additional interest of 5% p.a. from the date of this order till actual payment.