Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/1641

Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa College - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manpreet Singh - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.Thind

11 Jun 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,   PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.1641 of 2012

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 17.12.2012

                                                          Date of Decision :  11.06.2015

                                                                                                         

1.       Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa College, Anandpur Sahib, Tehsil          Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar, through its Principal and another.

2.       Shromani Gurdwara Parbandak Committee, Amritsar through its          President.

                                                                                                                                                                   …..Appellants/Opposite parties

                                      Versus

 

Manpreet Singh S/o Sh.Harveer Singh Sodhi R/o Village Kotla Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar

 

                                                          …..Respondent /Complainant

         

First Appeal against order dated 06.11.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member

          Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellants                     :         Sh. Ajaib Singh, Advocate

          For the respondent                    :         None

 

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

 

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellants (the opposite parties in the complaint) have directed this appeal against the respondent of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint), challenging order dated 06.11.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ropar, accepting the  complaint of the complainant and directing the OPs to refund the tuition fee deposited for a sum of Rs.13,255/- minus a sum of Rs.1000/-, as processing fee to the complainant along with interest 9% p.a, besides Rs.2000/- as costs of litigation. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the opposite parties now appellants in this appeal.

2.      The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that  complainant took admission in the institute of OPs on 29.06.2011 in first year of B.Com and deposited fee in the sum of Rs.13,255/-, vide receipt dated 29.6.2011. Thereafter, he got admission in some other institute and immediately thereafter he intimated OP No.1 about the said facts and demanded refund of the amount deposited by him, vide application dated 17.7.2011, but OPs put off the matter of the refund of fee on one pretext or the other, despite several visits. The complainant has, thus, filed the present complaint against the OPs directing them to refund the amount deposited by the complainant along with interest, besides Rs.40,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation as well.

3.      Upon notice, OPs filed their written reply by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable and merits dismissal. No cause of action has accrued to the complainants against the OPs in this case. This forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint, as complainant does not fall within the ambit or definition of 'consumer' under Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands and has not disclosed the true facts. It was averred that the institute of the OPs is affiliated with Punjabi University Patiala, but complainant has not impleaded the said University as a party in this case, thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. On merits, complaint was also contested by the OPs  that complainant took admission in the institute of OP on 29.6.2011 in first year of B.Com and deposited a sum of Rs.13,255/-, vide receipt dated 29.6.2011. It is submitted by the OPs that no notice of admission secured by the complainant in some other institute subsequent to his admission in the institute of OPs was given. It was denied that complainant filed application dated 17.7.2011 for refund of the fee. Vide letter dated 6.1.2012, the complainant was directed to visit the premises of the OPs, but he failed to do so.  It was pleaded that  as per rules and regulations of the Punjabi University Patiala, if a student gets admission in any of the institution affiliated with said University, but later on, he/she is not willing to continue his course then he/she is not entitled to any refund. It was also provided in the rules and regulations that refund is permissible, if all the seats in the session are filled after his/her withdrawal. Rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied by the OPs and OPs thus, prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence, the affidavit of complainant  Ex.CW-1/A, copy of legal notice Ex.C-2, application dated 18.7.2011 Ex.C-3, fee receipt Ex.C-4, spectrum Ex.C-5. As against it, OPs tendered evidence the affidavit of Sh. Manjit Singh Principal of college Ex.RW-1/A, rules and regulations regarding refund of fee Ex.R-1, receipt dated 18.10.2010 Ex.R-2, receipt dated 15.7.2008 Ex.R-3, time table for commencement of classes for B.Com Professional Ex.R-4, date for admission and holidays for the session 201-2012 Ex.R-5. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ropar, accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the Ops to refund the tuition fee in the sum of Rs.13,255/-, which has been deposited by the complainant minus a sum of Rs.1000/- on account of processing fee along with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from date of filing of complaint i.e. 6.8.2012, besides Rs.2000/- as costs of litigation. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Ropar dated 6.11.2012, the Ops now appellants have preferred this appeal against the same.  

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and none has appeared for complainant now respondent in this appeal at the time of final arguments of this appeal. We proceed to examine the case on its merits for its disposal. We refer to pleadings and evidence on the record between the parties. Undisputedly, the complainant got admission with the OPs college and thereafter took admission somewhere else and wanted to the refund of his fee deposited with OPs by him. He also served a legal notice on 16.12.2011  to OPs, but to no effect. Eventually, the complaint was filed  against OPs. The OPs took the plea in the written reply that once student started attending the classes, then he/she is not entitled to any refund of any other fee. The student is entitled to refund of the fee, if all the seats in that course remained filled. It was pleaded that complainant is not a consumer, as educations institutions are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act. Reference was made to the affidavit of Manpreet Singh complainant Ex.CW-1 on the record by us, Legal notice Ex.C-2, application moved to Principal of OP Ex.C-3, receipt of fee is Ex.C-4 and spectrum for fee Ex.C-5 are on the record. Affidavit of Manpreet Singh  Principal of Shri. Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa College is Ex.RW-1 on the record. Ex.R-1 is rules and regulations regarding the refund of fee. It lays down that if student leaves the course after admission is over, then he is not entitled for the refund of the fee. Ex.R-3 is letter issued by Assistant Registrar Punjabi University Patiala and Ex.R-4 is notice, Ex.R-5 is session 2011-12.

6.      We find that the dispute between the parties is basically with regard to the refund of the admission fee in this case. The matter has been settled by Apex Court in case titled as "P.T Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors." 2012(3) CPC 615 (SC) that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter of educational institutions like admission, fee and there is no relationship of the consumer and the service provider because education is not a commodity." The Apex Court has also observed in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur reported in 2010 (II) SCC 159 the Apex Court that educational institutions cannot be dealt with by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The educational institutions imparting education is not providing service and they are not service provider to be covered under the Consumer Protection Act. There is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties. It is, thus, evident that any educational institute is not held liable by the Apex Court and such type of matter regarding refund of fee is covered as settled by the Apex Court in "P.T Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors" (supra).

7.      Consequently, we find that District Forum has overlooked this important legal aspect of the matter involved in this case. The remedy for the complainants is to apply before competent court of law for the redressal of its grievance and not before the Consumer Forum.

8.      As a result of our above discussion, the order of the District Forum Ropar dated 06.11.2012 is not sustainable and same is ordered to be set aside in this appeal. The appeal of the appellant is hereby accepted by setting aside the order of the District Forum Ropar dated 06.11.2012. The complaint of the complainant stands dismissed by leaving the complainant to agitate their matter before the competent  Forum in accordance with the law.

9.      The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.7900/- at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the appellant by way of cross cheque/demand draft after 45 days from receipt of copy of this order.

10.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 09.06.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

11.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                      PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                              (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                          MEMBER

 

                                                                                 

                                                           (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                          MEMBER

 

June 11   2015.                                                              

(ravi)