DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW

CASE No.464 of 2014

       1. Sri Bhawani Shankar Dwivedi,

          S/o Sri Kalidutt Dwivedi,

          R/o H.No.589kha/691/4, Dwarikapuri,

          Ring Road, Telibagh, Lucknow.

       2. Sri Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi,

           S/o Bhawani Shankar Dwivedi,

          R/o H.No.589kha/691/4, Dwarikapuri,

          Ring Road, Telibagh, Lucknow.      

                                                                   ……Complainants

Versus

                1.  Maharana Institute of Technology & Sciences,

                    Gram- Gaura, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow.

                    Through Director/Authorised Officer.

               2. Maharana Pratap Engineering College,

                   Kothi Manghana, G.T. Road,

                   Kanpur.

                   Through President/Authorised Officer.

                                                                               .......Opp. Parties

Present:-

Sri Vijai Varma, President.

Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.

JUDGMENT

This complaint has been filed by the Complainants against the OPs for refund of fees of Rs.20,000.00 with interest and compensation etc.

          The case in brief of the Complainants is that the Complainant No.1 had admitted Complainant No.2 on 01.08.2012 in the institute of OP No.1 by depositing Rs.20,000.00 in MBA course. The OP No.1 had assured the Complainant No.1 that if Complainant No.2 was not interested in studying in their institute then the fees would be refunded. When the Complainant No.1 went to the house, then the Complainant No.2 told him that he was not interested in MBA

-2-

course. On the next day i.e. 02.08.2012 the Complainant No.1 contacted OPs on phone and asked for refund of fees and documents on which OP No.1 assured the Complainant No.1 for doing the same. The Complainant No.1 did not attend any class in the institute of the OPs. The Complainant No.1 contacted OPs for refund of fees many times but to no avail, hence this complaint.

          The OPs have filed the reply wherein it is mainly submitted that after taking admission into the institute of the OPs it is the personal decision of the Complainants to refuse admission into the institute for which the OPs are not responsible. The OPs have not committed any deficiency in service and in fact they have suffered because of refusal of the Complainant No.2 to study in their institute. This complaint has been filed on false grounds, therefore it is liable to be dismissed.

          In this regard, it is to be noted that in a plethora of cases the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble NCDRC and Hon’ble SCDRC, UP have held that the case relating to refund of fees is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act in the Fora. In P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs Ellen Charitable Trust and Ors. it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “In Maharshi Dayanand University Vs Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically 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 matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.” In III (2014) CPJ 120 (NC) Regional Institute of Cooperative Management Vs Naveen Kumar Chaudhary & others it has been held by the Hon’ble NCDRC that the educational institution has not provided any kind of service. Also in the case decided by the

-3-

Hon’ble SCDRC, U.P. in Appeal No.1332/11 MITC & others Vs Kumari Pushpa Bisht and other appeals on 22.08.2014 it has been held that the Complainants/students are not the consumers of the OP and that the education does not come within the purview of the commodity and OP is not a service provider, hence there is no question of deficiency of service, therefore the Complainants are not entitled to any relief from the Forum. On the basis of the aforesaid judgments, it is abundantly clear that the OPs being an educational institution, is not a service provider in a case involving fees etc. and therefore this complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act in this Forum. Therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed at this stage itself. However, the Complainants can seek remedy before the appropriate Forum or Civil Court as per law.

ORDER

          The complaint is dismissed.

The parties to bear their own costs.

                   (Anju Awasthy)                      (Vijai Varma)

                             Member                                      President

   Dated:   22  July, 2015