BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
BEFORE : Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. SUBBIAH PRESIDENT
Tmt Dr. S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI MEMBER
F.A.NO.202/2015
(Against order in CC.NO.288/2012 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (South)
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021
Meenakshi College for Women (Autonomous)
Rep. by its Secretary M/s. N. Damodharan
363, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam Counsel for
Chennai – 600 024 Appellant / Opposite party
Vs.
U. Bhuvaneshwari
D/o. K. Umapathi
No.2/709, IIIrd Cross Street
Selvaganapathy Nagar M/s. C.D.Sugumar
Sanneeirkuppam Counsel for
Chennai – 600 024 Respondent/ Complainant
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Commission had allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.8.5.2015 in CC.No.288/2012.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order:
ORDER
JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/ opposite party as against the order dt.8.5.2015 passed by the District Commission, Chennai (South), in CC.No.288/2012, directing the appellant/ opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.15,000/- alongwith compensation of Rs.3000/- and cost of Rs.2000/- on the ground that there is negligence on the part of the opposite party.
2. The brief facts of the complaint before the District Commission are as follows:
The Respondent/ Complainant has applied for Master of Computer Application course in the Appellant/opposite party college on 12.6.2012 and paid a sum of Rs.20000/- as course fee. Towards the receipt of the said amount, the appellant had issued receipt dt.9.7.2012. After the payment of fees, the complainant wanted to discontinue the course and asked the college management to return the testimonials given at the time of admission, and also prayed for refund of the fee paid @Rs.20000/-. But the college authorities have returned only the testimonials and have not returned the fees. The complainant would submit that the college is not having any authority to forfeit the fees paid in case of her withdrawal from the course. The complainant would further submit that there is a public notice from the University Grants Commission stating that in the event of student/ candidate withdrawing before starting of the course, the wait listed candidate should be given admission against the vacant seat and the entire fees collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fees of not more than Rs.1000/-, shall be returned to the candidate withdrawing from the programme. If there is any violation on the instruction given, the UGC shall call for punitive action including withdrawal of approval and recognition of erring institutions and universities. In the complainant’s case she had withdrawn from the course before its commencement and therefore she is entitled for refund of the fees paid as per the guidelines given by the UGC. Thus alleging negligence on the part of the opposite party, the complaint is filed by the complainant praying for refund of the amount paid @Rs.20000/- alongwith compensation of Rs.50000/- and cost of Rs.10000/-.
3. The said case was resisted by the opposite party by filing their version before the District Commission as follows:
The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in law and on facts of the case. In fact the complainant had joined the college on 9.7.2012 and attended the classes for one day on 10.7.2012 and discontinued her studies on and from 13.7.2012 citing the reason that due to shifting of the complainant’s family to the native place at Vellore. Even in the application form for admission, the complainant had given an undertaking that the complainant would continue in course if she is admitted and the complainant would forfeit the fees paid and also pay the fees for the rest of the year in the event of the complainant leaving the college after admission any time before completing the course. After admission the complainant joined the course and had also attended the classes and hence the fee was not returned by the opposite party while returning the testimonials. As the public notice of University Grants Commission, New Delhi dt.23.4.2007 clearly states that the “students leave after joining the course, and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled up by another candidates by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate hostel rent where applicable. Since the complainant had already joined and attended the classes as per UGC and AICTE norms the complainant is not entitled for refund of fee. The vacancy could not be filled and remains vacant, thus caused loss to the institution. There is no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant, thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove their respective cases proof affidavit was filed by both and 5 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to A5 on the side of the complainant and four documents were marked as Ex.B1 to B4 on the side of the opposite party.
5. The District Commission, on analyzing the evidences and the submissions made has come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and thus allowed the complaint. Aggrieved over the said order, the opposite party has filed this appeal.
6. Now the present appeal is filed by the opposite party mainly on the ground that as per Sec.2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended by Act 62 of 2002, the Respondent/ Complainant will neither come under the provisions of the said definition nor comes under the definition of Sec.2(b) or 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The education imparted by the Appellant/ opposite party college to the students would not attract any of the provisions of the said Act. Hence it is submitted that the lis as initiated by the Respondent/ Complainant itself is not maintainable. In support of the contentions, the appellant had relied upon plethora of case laws.
With regard to the merit of the case, the Learned counsel for appellant/ opposite party submitted that the Respondent /Complainant had already given an undertaking that she would continue in course if she is admitted and she would forfeit the fees paid and also pay the fees for the rest of the year in the event of leaving the college after admission any time before completing the course. Since the complainant joined the course and had also attended the classes, the fee was not returned to the complainant while returning the testimonials.
7. Countering the submissions the learned counsel for the Respondent / Complainant submitted that as per the University Grant Commission’s public notice, it is stated that in the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course the wait listed candidate should be given admission against the vacant seat and the entire fees collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fees of not more than Rs.1000/- shall be returned to the student. In case of any violation of instructions issued by the University Grant Commission, the same shall call for punitive action including withdrawal of approval and recognition against erring institutions and universities. Therefore, they are bound to return the amount. Thus prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8. We have heard the learned counsel on bothsides, perused the documents and the order impugned. On the basis of the submissions made, the first and foremost point for consideration is
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
If this point is answered in affirmative, then only dealing with the case on merit would arise. Therefore, first of all we wish to see whether the complainant would come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The main contention of the appellant/ opposite party is that the complaint will not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, and the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer.
In support of his contention he has relied upon the following judgements.
- The order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur reported in (2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 159, wherein it was held that “ 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.”
- In a batch of cases against various institutions in CC.No.261/2012 and other cases, the Hon’ble National Commission as per common order dt.20.1.2020 has held in detail placing reliance of various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court;
Some of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which were placed reliance in the above order of the Hon’ble National Commission are:
In P.T.Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., reported in 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC) that “ students are not ‘consumers’ and ‘Education’ is not a commodity and that Educational Institutions are not rendering ‘Service’.
In Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, reported in 2020(11)SCC 159 dt.19.7.2020 it was held that “the Board is not a service provider’ and a student who takes an examination is not a ‘consumer’ and consequently complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the ‘Board’.
- In Civil Appeal No.17802/2017 and 17803/2017 dt.30.10.2017 in Anupama College of Engineering Vs. Gulshan Kumar & Ors., the Hon’ble Supreme Court placing reliance of the judgement of the Apex Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, has held that “Education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such a matter cannot be entertained by the consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986”.
9. In view of the above, it is crystal clear that the issue is no more res-Integra and it is settled that the ‘Education’ is not a commodity and that Educational Institutions are not rendering ‘Service’. Therefore it is concluded that the educational institutions are not providing service and thus the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Since the above point is answered against the complainant stating that the complainant herself cannot be considered as a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the complaint filed by the complainant itself is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. Therefore, we are not inclined to deal with the merits of the matter.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed, by setting aside of the District Commission, Chennai (South) in CC.No.288/2012 dt.8.5.2015, and the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Registry is directed to discharge the mandatory deposit if any made alongwith accrued interest in favour of the appellant.
S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI R. SUBBIAH
MEMBER PRESIDENT
