BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.                       

                                                            Complaint No.: 383 of 2011.

                                                            Date of Institution: 1.9.2011.

                                                            Date of Decision: 9.3.2015.

Ms. Monika daughter of Shri Banwari Lal, resident of House No.411, Sector-13, HUDA, Bhiwani, tehsil and district Bhiwani.                                                                                                       ….Complainant

                                  Versus.

1. Media Master, 196, Ring Road, Satya Niketan, Near Dhaula Kuan, New Delhi through its President/Secretary.
2. Shri Kulwant son of Shri Ajit Singh Boora, resident of Friends Colony, Near Shiv Mandir, Bhiwani, tehsil and district Bhiwani.
3. Shri Ramphal Jakhra son of Shri Thambu Ram, resident of village Pur, tehsil Bawanikhera, district Bhiwani.                                                                                       …...Respondents.

                 COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF

                 THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Sitting: -    Shri B.D. Yadav, President,

                 Shri Balraj Singh, Member,

                 Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member,

Present:    Complainant in person.

                 Respondent No.2 given up.

                 Respondent No.1 & 3 ex parte.

O R D E R

                 The grievance of the complainant is that she had applied for registration of Diploma Course in Media, Journalism and Mass-Communication. It is alleged that she had deposited Rs.660/- for prospectus and registration and thereafter a sum of Res.25500/- was deposited as fee for 1^st Semester. The complainant further alleged that she started attending classes in the centre of respondents at Bhiwani but no education regarding Media Master was provided as per prospectus. It is further alleged that on 29.9.2009 she again deposited a sum of Rs.26000/- as fee for second semester and a trip of Delhi Centre was organized by respondent No.3. The complainant further alleged that after completion of course she asked the Head of Delhi Centre about the study of Media Master Course, Exams and certificate but they did not pay any heed. The complainant further alleged that she requested the respondents to return the fee paid by her but they flatly refused to refund the same. Therefore, the complainant has claimed the refund of fee etc. along with compensation by way of filing present complaint.

2.              Respondents No.1 & 3 have failed to come present despite sending of several registered notices as well as through “Publication” and as such, they were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 28.10.2014.

3.              Respondent No.2 given up vide statement and order dated 12.11.2014.

4.              Complainant has filed her duly sworn affidavits to prove her respective version.

5.               We have heard the complainant, in person, at length.

6.              The dispute is between the complainant and educational institution. Therefore, the issue before this Forum is as to whether question of deficiency in service arises or not?. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bihar School Examination Board Versus Suresh Prasad Sinha, cited as IV (2009) C.P.J. 34(S.C.) has held that the fee paid by the student is not a consideration for availing of service. It has also been held that Education Board & Universities are not “Service Provider” and the complaints against them are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Hon’ble Apex Court referring  the judgment, ‘Maharishi Dayanand University Versus Surjeet Kaur’ 2010(II) SCC 159 has also held in case P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Otrs. 2012(3) C.P.C. 615(S.C.) that the education is not a commodity and Educational Institutions are not providing any service. Therefore, in the matter of admission fee etc. cannot be a question of deficiency in service and as such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Fora under C.P.Act, 1986. We can also draw support from the Director, Bhiwani, ITS V/s Aman Chhabara decided on 1.4.2014 vide which similar observations were made by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and same stands dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.

6.              However, if complainant chooses to file a civil suit or an application before the appropriate Authority, this dismissal would not come in the way and complainant may seek exclusion of time under section 14 of the Limitation Act. It was so held in Laxmi Engg. Works Vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute-II (1995) CPJ-I Supreme Court.  Documents, if any be returned to the complainant against proper receipts. The file be consigned to the record room.  Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 9.3.2015.                                           President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

(Balraj Singh)    (Anita Sheoran)

Member.            Member