BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 400 of 2019
Date of Institution : 25.07.2019.
Date of Decision : 17.11.2022.
Piyush Narula (aged about 19 years) son of Sh. Parveen Narula, resident of House No. 331/19, Guru Nanak Nagri, Gali No.2, Rania Gate, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur, IInd Floor, Prabha Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan) through its Director/ Registrar/ Authorized person.
2. Triguna Sen School of Technology, Assam University (A Central University), Silchar, Assam India- 788011 through its Vice- Chancellor.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA……………..MEMBER
Present: Sh. Ravinder Monga, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Wadhwa, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
ORDER
The case of complainant, in brief, is that complainant is a student having bright future and ambitions in life. The complainant did his 10+2 in Non Medical from DAV school, Sirsa. The family of complainant is having expectations for enrolling him in a better and reputed institution for securing his future. That complainant did his 10+2 from CBSE Board and obtained 72% marks, but as per the future plan the score was not as per expectations, so the complainant put more labor for improving the percentage and repeated the entire exam and ultimately the complainant scored 75.4% marks in Non Medical. It is further averred that during the process for re-examination and improving the percentage, the complainant entered into online registration for securing his admission in reputed institution for B. Tech. The complainant applied in many Universities i.e. in State Govt. Universities as well as under the Central Govt. Universities. That in the process for securing the seat, the complainant contacted with op no.1 and inquired about the system of registration. The complainant received online instructions prepared and issued by op no.1. The complainant secured his seat by registering himself through online process on payment of Rs.36,500/-. The op no.1 explained the rules of Central Seat Allocation Board, 2018 wherein it was held that every student is entitled for four options i.e. (i) Freez (ii) Slid, (iii) float (iv) surrender. These options were open to every student and during discussion it was made clear that in the process of online selection round system, the complainant is bound to deposit another Rs.35,000/- for opting the next round. As per the condition imposed by op no.1, no option was left to the complainant to deposit the amount as he was interested to avail better choice i.e. computer science etc., so unconditionally an amount of Rs.71,500/- got deposited with op no.1 from his sister account. It is further averred that due to some communication gap, op no.1 cancelled the seat of complainant on 29.7.2018 while verifying the documents and found the ineligibility of complainant on the basis of low scoring of 72% marks though the complainant at the time of 1st round made it clear that he had scored 75.4% and upon coming to know about the factual position, the op no.1 while accepting their negligence immediately confirmed the seat of complainant in their record and loaded the same on the computer online record. That Central Seat Allocation Board is controlling/ managing all over India and providing up to date information to the students. The detail of every institution with choice-wise published in the list, wherein as per the percentage and choice, at choice No.117, the complainant was allotted the seat of Gurukul Vishawavidalaya Haridwar in Mechanical Engineering in first round. The complainant contacted with op no.1 and informed about the status of his choice and success result in first round. The op no.1 while admitting the fact being aware informed that in case complainant is interested to join Gurukul Kangri Vishawavidalaya, he has to deposit remaining Rs.35,000/- for appearing in 2nd round as well as for getting the benefit to transfer Rs.70,000/- in succeed/ confirmed seat i.e. Gurukul Kangri. The complainant left with no option but to deposit the amount of Rs.71,500/- with op no.1 for availing the benefit mentioned above. The complainant in clear terms categorically informed to op no.1 that as per choice, he had finalized his seat in Gurukul Kangri Vishawadalya Haridwar, so the amount of Rs.70,000/- may be transferred after deducting registration charges of Rs.1500/-. The op no.1 assured that after confirming the contents informed by complainant they shall transfer it as per the mandatory rules.
2. It is further averred that due to failure of computer system of ops, the seat of complainant was wrongly shifted from 117 to 77 which was not of his choice. The complainant neither selected nor entered for joining the seat shown to be mentioned at Sr. No.77. He had given the option of his choice i.e. nearby distance from his native place. That upon confirmation of seat in Gurukul Kangri Vishwadalaya Haridwar, he had contacted with op no.1 and requested for transferring/ shifting the amount of Rs.70,000/- but op no.1 informed that due to computer error his amount had been wrongly transferred to allotted seat at Sr. no.77 in Assam University Silchar. The complainant was stunned to hear this from op no.1 as their negligence or error in their server could not be burdened to the complainant for any financial losses. It is further averred that complainant through parents contacted with op no.1 who after due discussion advised to contact with the Assam University, Silchar which is now retaining/ withholding the amount of Rs.70,000/-. The complainant thereafter contacted with op no.2 for a number of occasions but they had postponed the matter on one or the other pretext and surprisingly with the sole intention to usurp/ withhold the hard earned money, op no.2 sent reply of mail and observed “Please go through the rules and regulation of CSAB, 2018 for the refund of counseling fee. Since you have not admitted in Assam University Silchar, so refunding policy will be decided as per the rules of CSAB, 2018. If the authority of CSAB had given a permission then apply for the same through proper channel”. That from the reply, it is proved that amount of complainant is now withheld by op no.2 and they are not at all interested to return/ refund the amount of Rs.70,000/- and have caused unnecessary harassment. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections that complaint is not at all maintainable before this Commission and deserves to be dismissed at the very outset on the ground of lack of jurisdiction since no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission; that complainant is not covered within the definition of consumer and answering op is also not covered within the definition of service provider being an educational institution of higher studies in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that counseling for admission to NITs, IITs, SPAs and other GFTIs jointly termed as NIT + System were conducted by Central Seat Allocation Board (CSAB-2018) MNIT Jaipur for the academic year 2018-2019 but the complainant has not impleaded CSAB-2018 as party to his complaint, therefore, complaint deserves to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary and proper party.
4. On merits, it is submitted that complainant registered himself with CSAB-2018 after appearing in JEE (Mains) examination 2019 in which he was ranked at No. 163347.00 in Common Ranking List in General category in para-1. The complainant given his choice no.117 as Mechanical Engineering 4 years B.Tech Academic Program in Gurukul Kangra Vishwavidyalaya, Haridwar and in the first special round of CSAB-2018 he was allotted the seat as per the said choice, however, the complainant obtained for option “FLOAT” and deposited fee of Rs.35,000/-. Thereafter, he participated in Special Round -2 of CSAB-2018 for better up-gradation of his choice and in the said round he was allotted his choice no.77 which was Computer Science 4 years B. Tech Academic Course in Assam University Silchar but he failed to report at the said last allotted Institution within the stipulated time and the fee of Rs.70,000/- was transferred to the said Institution by the CSAB-2018 after deducting the process fee of Rs.1500/-. Thus, after allotment of seat in special round-2 as per choice no.77 of complainant, he was not entitled for allotment of seat at Gurukul Kangri Vishwavidyalaya, Haridwar as per his choice no. 117, therefore, he is not entitled for refund of any fees. It is further submitted that just before the result of seat allotment of Special Round-2 of CSAB-2018, some technical error occurred on online server of CSAB-NIC portal and the process of counseling was interrupted for a day. However, in a very short time the technical expert team sorted out the problem and once again the online counseling process went on as usual without any further interruption. However, due to said technical interruption the choices filled by the candidate remained intact and no complaint was received from any candidate with regard to deletion of choices in the office of CSAB-2018. It is further submitted that complainant never restricted/ deleted his choice no.77 Assam University, Silchar and it was duly opted the said choice no.77 which is very much clear from the perusal of choice list. That since the complainant has selected FLOAT option and participated in special round-2, therefore, he cannot be allotted earlier allotted seat as per his choice no. 117 since he was allotted a seat as per his choice no.77. Thus there was no negligence at all at the part of the authorities of CSAB-2018. He deposited the fees of Rs.35,000/- as seat acceptance fees on 30.07.2018 and as such he deposited total Rs.71,500/-. It is denied that complainant was wrongly shifted from choice no. 117 to choice no.77 and further the complainant lost his right to get allotment of his seat at Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya, Haridwar as per his choice no. 117 after choosing option FLOAT and participating in Special Round-2 in which he was allotted his up-graded choice no. 77. All other contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Op no.2 failed to appear despite notice sent through registered cover and after waiting for stipulated period since none appeared on behalf of op no.2, it was proceeded against exparte.
6. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to C8.
7. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Kailash Singh Co-coordinator of op no.1 as Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R4.
8. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and learned counsel for op no.1 and have perused the case file carefully.
9. In this case, the first and foremost issue is that whether this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint, because the OPs have raised objection that complainant is not a consumer and this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint. In this case, the complainant is seeking refund of the fee deposited with the ops. Hence, it is to be seen whether complaint is maintainable against the education institution or not. The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the ops which is an educational institution imparting education. The pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble NCDRC in cases P.T. Koshy & Anr. vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC); Anupama College of Engineering vs. Gulshan Kumar and Ors. Civil Appeal Nos. 17802 and 17803 of 2017 decided on 30.10.2017; Maharishi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur (2010) 11 SCC 159; Manu Solanki and others vs. Vinayak Mission University I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC); Rajendra Kumar Gupta vs. Swarup Public School 2021 (1) CPJ (NC) 368 are relevant regarding issue whether the complaint against the educational institution can be entertained by the consumer commission or not. The perusal of above judgments clearly goes to show that it has been held in said judgments that education is not commodity and service imparting education institution cannot be held to be service provider and student cannot be said to be a consumer. Therefore, consumer commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter pertaining to the deficiency of service in education. In case titled as Anupama College of Engineering vs. Gulshan Kumar and ors. CA No. 17802 of 2017 decided on 30.10.2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“Learned counsel for the appellant has placed the decision of this Court in Maharishi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur (2010) 11 SCC 159. The aforesaid judgment was followed by this Court in SLP (C) No. 22532/2021 titled as P.T. Koshy & Anr. vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. The order reads as follows:
“In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharishi 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.”
10. Considering the ratio of law laid down in the above referred judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency in service and such matters cannot be decided by the Consumer Commission. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has contended that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Frankfinn Institute of Air Houstess Training and anr. Versus Aashima Jarial 2019 (2) CPJ 255 decided on 4.4.2019, the complaint regarding refund of fee is maintainable in the Consumer Commission. However, we found no substance in the contention of learned counsel for complainant because in latest judgment in case titled as Rajendra Kumar Gupta vs. Dr. Virendra Swarup Public School & Anr. FA No. 852 of 2016 decided on 2.2.2021 the Hon’ble National Commission has held that “It is settled law, as stated in the aforementioned precedents set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Commission, that Educational Institutions do not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.” Therefore, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter involved in the present complaint and present complaint is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
11. In view of foregoing discussion, reasons and well settled legal position regarding dispute involved in this complaint, the present complaint is dismissed but with no order as to costs. However, complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate court of law for redressal of his grievance, as per law, if so advised. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced : Member Member President,
Dated: 17.11.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
