Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 331.

                                                          Instituted on     : 30.07.2015.

                                                          Decided on       : 04.08.2015.

Garima d/o Sh. Krishan Lal Resident of House No.1711 Sector-3, Rohtak, District Rohtak.

                                                                    ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

1. STG Institute of Engineering & Technology, Gurgaon-Badli Road, Village Budhera, District Gurgaon through its Director/Principal.
2.  Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak through its Registrar.
3. Vaish College of Engineering Rohtak, District Rohtak, Haryana through its Principal.

                                                          ……….Opposite parties.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.

                   MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.Neereaj Dalal, Advocate for the complainant.

                                      ORDER

SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :

1.                          Today the case is fixed for the consideration on the point of maintainability. Heard. The contention of ld. Counsel for the complainant is that the complainant had taken admission in the Institute of O.P.No.1 for the session 2011-12. It is averred that due to poor facilities provided by the opposite party no.1, complainant applied for migration and as such she was allowed to migrate in Vaish College but the opposite party has charged Rs.56000/- as fee from the complainant. As such by way of complaint, complainant has sought the refund of fee alongwith compensation.  In this regard we have placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court as P.T.Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable trust & Ors., 2012(3)CPC 615(S.C) whereby it is 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”, as per 2011(1)RSJ 2 titled as Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, Hon’ble Supreme court of India has held that Education-Examination results-Non declaration of result-Estopel-complaint maintainability-Entertaining of the complaint by the District forum and award of relief which has been approved by the National Commission do not confirm to law liable to be aside”.

2.                          In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that complainant is not a consumer of opposite party and as such the present complaint is not maintainable and accordingly stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

3.                          Copy of this order be supplied to the complainant free of costs.

4.                          File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

04.08.2015.                                               

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Komal Khanna, Member.