KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.675/2016

JUDGEMENT DATED: 15.10.2024

(Against the Order in C.C.No.310/2012 of DCDRC, Ernakulam)

PRESENT:

APPELLANTS:

(by Advs. George Cherian Karippaparambil & S. Reghukumar)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  :  PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondents are the complainants in C.C.No.310/2012 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (for short ‘the District Commission’).

          2.       The respondents filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service in connection with the study of the 2^nd respondent in the educational institution of the appellants, as the 2^nd respondent had to quit the institution before completing the B-Tech course.

          3.       The appellants filed version strongly opposing the contentions in the complaint.  PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 to A13 were marked for the respondents.  DW1 was examined and Exhibits B1 to B8 were marked for the appellants.  The District Commission, after evaluating the evidence, directed the appellants to refund an amount of Rs.3,98,600/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand and Six Hundred only) with 12.25% interest per annum to the respondents.  The District Commission further directed the appellants to send the entire original certificates belonging to the 2^nd respondent by speed post to the 2^nd respondent.  The District Commission also directed the appellants to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs only) and costs of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the respondents.  Against the said order, this appeal has been filed.

          4.       Heard. Perused the records.

5.       The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that since the institution of the appellants is an educational institution recognized by the University, the 2^nd respondent would not come within the ambit of     ‘consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and consequently, the order passed by the District Commission cannot be sustained.  The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“the National Commission” for short) in Manu Solanki & ors. Vs. Vinayaka Mission University reported in 1 (2020) CPJ 210 (NC) to support his argument.  In paragraph 51 of the Manu Solanki & ors. (supra), the National Commission held as hereinbelow:-

“51. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion, tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport etc. except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act”. 

6.  The institution of the appellants is admittedly an institution imparting education.  Therefore, in view of the decision of the National Commission in Manu Solanki & ors. (supra), the institution of the appellants would not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.  Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondents is not maintainable.  Therefore, the order passed by the District Commission is liable to be set aside.  Accordingly, the order passed by the District Commission stands set aside.  Since the complaint is found to be not maintainable, we are not entering into the merits of the case.  

In the result, this appeal stands allowed, the order dated 20.06.2015 of the District Commission in C.C. No.310/2012 stands set aside and the complaint stands dismissed as not maintainable. 

The statutory deposit made by the appellants shall be refunded to the appellants, on proper acknowledgment. 

SL