1.       This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by Mody University of Sciences and Technology (for short “the University”) and its Dean, Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 respectively in the Complaint, is directed against the order dated 31.08.2016, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 94 of 2011.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 14.12.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sikar (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 44 of 2010.  By the said order, the District Forum, while accepting the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein, alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the Petitioners herein in not refunding a part of the fee deposited by her at the time of taking admission for B. Tech Course in the Petitioner University, had directed the Petitioners to refund to the Complainant an amount of ₹1,44,000/- within two months from the date of the said order, with a default stipulation that if the amount is not paid within the said time, it shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the order till realization.

2.       Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has strenuously urged that since the Complainant had decided to withdraw from the University on 14.08.2008, after she had been admitted to the Course and had in fact been called for counselling on 26.07.2008, she was not entitled to the refund of the aforesaid amount deposited by her, except for the personal charges and caution money, totalling to ₹12,500/-.  It is also urged that in view of the decisions of this Commission, the Complainant, not being a “consumer”, the Complaint itself was not maintainable.

3.       Having examined the orders passed by both the Fora below in the light of the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission (U.G.C.), vide public notice dated 23.04.2007, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned Counsel.    

4.       Insofar the question as to whether the Complainant was a “consumer”, having perused the order dated 26.06.2015 passed by this Commission in Revision Petition No. 3993 of 2011, wherein by relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC 483; Jagmitter Sain Bhagat v. Dir. Health Services, Haryana & Ors., (2013) 10 SCC 136 etc., by a short order, the Bench has held that being a student, University does not render any services to him.  The Revision Petition, preferred by a student, was dismissed on the ground that he was not a consumer.  In Bihar School (supra), the question before the Hon’ble Court was whether a Statutory Board conducting academic examinations was a service provider qua a student taking the exam.  Answering the question in favour of the Board, the Hon’ble Court held that any dispute relating to fault in holding the examination and non-declaration of result of an examinee does not fall within the purview of the Act, which is not the case here.  Jagmitter Sain Bhagat’s case (supra) has absolutely no bearing on the point at issue.  According to our understanding of Bihar School Board’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not laid down as an abstract proposition of law that a student taking admission in an educational institute can never be a “consumer” vis-à-vis the institution, within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.  Accordingly, we reject the argument.  The instant case had to be decided in the light of the afore-noted guidelines issued by the U.G.C.  Any action by the institute in contravention of the said binding guidelines would undoubtedly amount to unfair trade practice.   

5.       Taking into consideration the said guidelines, both the Forums below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact, which has not been challenged by the Petitioners as being perverse on any ground, that the Petitioners have not placed on record any evidence to show that after the Complainant had left the Course, her seat remained vacant and had not been filled up by another candidate by the last date of admission. 

6.       In that view of the matter, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting our interference insofar as the question of refund of fee is concerned.

7.       However, as noticed above, the District Forum had directed that if the amount awarded by it is not refunded to the Complainant within the time granted, the same shall attract interest at the rate of 9% p.a.  Having regard to the fact that 50% of the awarded amount had been deposited by the Petitioners in the State Commission, as a pre-condition for admission of their Appeal, it would be just and fair to set aside the direction regarding the default stipulation of payment of interest on the said amount.  We order accordingly.  

8.       Consequently, while affirming the direction issued by the Fora below relating to refund of the fee, we allow the Revision Petition to the extent that the Petitioners shall not be liable to pay any interest on the afore-noted amount.

9.       Since 50% of the awarded amount is stated to have been deposited in the State Commission, it will be open to the Complainant to withdraw the same on moving appropriate application in this behalf.  The balance amount due to the Complainant in terms of this order shall be remitted to her by the Petitioners within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of actual realization.

10.     The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.