Haryana

StateCommission

A/279/2015

NEHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGING COMMITTEE OF DAYAL SINGH COLLEGE AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

B.R.BHATTI

22 Jul 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      279 of 2015

Date of Institution:     24.03.2015

Date of Decision :      22.07.2015

 

Miss Neha daughter of Sh. Fateh Singh, resident of Village and Post Office Admin, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Managing Committee of Dayal Singh College, Karnal through its President.

2.      Principal Dayal Singh, College, Karnal.

3.      Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra through its Registrar.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               None

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This appeal has been preferred by Neha-complainant, against the order dated October 01^st, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Kurukshetra, whereby complaint filed by her was dismissed.

2.      The complainant took admission in Dayal Singh College, Karnal-opposite party in M. Sc. Chemistry 1^st year for the academic year 2012-2013.  She deposited Rs.15,515/- with the opposite party vide receipt dated July 24^th, 2012. Thereafter on July 26^th, 2012, the complainant took admission in Kurukshetra University in M. Sc. Physics. She requested Dayal Singh College to refund the deposited fee but they refunded only Rs.3258/-, out of Rs.15,515/-.

3.      She filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’) which was dismissed.

4.      On the last date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant.  Today also, position is the same.  Therefore, we have proceeded to dispose of the appeal by perusing the record. 

5.      The dispute is between the complainant and the Educational Institute. So, the issue before this Commission is as to whether or not the question of deficiency in service arises?

6.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihar School Examination Board versus Suresh Prasad Sinha, IV (2009) C.P.J. 34 (SC) held that the examination fee paid by student is not a consideration for availment of service, but charge paid for privilege of participation in examination. It has also been held that Education Boards & Universities are not ‘Service Provider’ and the complaints against them are not maintainable under the Act.

7.      In P.T. Koshy & Anr. Versus Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., 2012(3) C.P.C. 615 (S.C.) Hon’ble Apex Court after referring to judgment Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur 2010(11) SCC 159 held that education is not commodity and Educational institutions are not providing any service. Therefore, in the matter of admission, fee etcetera, there cannot be a question of deficiency in service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Fora under the Act.

8.      In view of the legal position enunciated above, the complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum.  

9.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed. However, the complainant  shall have liberty to seek her grievances before the proper forum or Civil Court, as per law.  She can seek help for condonation of delay in accordance with law laid down in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute – 1995(3) SCC 583.

 

 

Announced 22.07.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK