IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Smt. Bindhu R.  Member

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

IA No. 473/2022

in

C C No. 147/2022

Dated, the 23^rd  day of January, 2023

Petitioner                                  :         Elizabath Elza Saimon,

                                                          Payipra, Veloor.

                                                                   Vs.   

Opposite parties                       :  1)    Vice Chancellor,

                                                          Mahatma Gandhi University,

                                                          Priyadarsini Hills,

                                                          Athirampuzha, Kottayam

                                                          (Adv. V.K. Sathyavan Nair)

                                                   2)    Principal,

                                                          CSI College for Legal Studies,

                                                          Kanakkari, Ettumanoor

                                                          Pin – 686632

                                                          (Adv. George Itty T.)

                                                O  R  D  E  R

Sri. Manulal V.S. President

          This interlocutory application is filed by the petitioner herein, who is the respondent in original complaint.  The petitioner herein challenge the maintainability of the original complaint on the ground that the respondent / complainant is not a consumer and the petitioner herein is not a service provider under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.  The original complaint is filed by the complainant who was a student of the 2^nd opposite party.                                The original complaint joined for a course of 5 years criminology LLB during the year 2015.  According to the complainant, the opposite parties offered that the course would complete within 5 years but the course is completed on the 6^th year.  it is further averred in the complaint that due to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, he had lost precious one year and her carrier.  It is further averred in the complaint that though she had applied for original degree certificate through the fast track mode on 13-10-2021 the same was not provided to her by the 1^st opposite party raising some lame excuses.  The 1^st opposite party demanded the printed mark list of 1^st semester of the complainant, which was not provided by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.  According to the complainant these acts of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service.

          The petitioner herein, who is the 1^st opposite party contented that they are not a service provider under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.

The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in III (2022) CPJ 322(NC). The Hon’ble National Commission has held in Manonmaniam Sundaranar University VS. Sreosi Chatterjee and others held that the university do not fall within the purview of Consumer Protection Act as it is not rendering any service.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1) (d), 21(b) – Consumer – Educational institute – ‘Service’ – Manonmaniam Sundaranar University (Petitioner) is imparting Education to students – Complainant / Respondent No.1 took admission in MBA in Marketing of Petitioner University – Petitioner – University do not fall within purview of Consumer Protection Act as it is not rendering any service – Complaint is not maintainable – Liberty is given to Complainant / Respondent No.1 to take recourse to such remedy as is available under law.

In Manu Solanki and Others Vs. Vinayak Mission University and other connected cases I (2020) CPJ, 210 (NC) held

“37. The following legal issues arise from the submissions made by the rival parties and the afore noted decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

• Would any defects/deficiency/unfair trade practice indulged by the Educational Institutions post admission, which does not fall within the ‘course of imparting knowledge’ till the degree is conferred, falls within the ambit of the definition of Education?
• If we apply the definition of Education, imparting knowledge for full potential, will that criterion apply to the admission stage, when the foundation for admission itself is deficient?
• Would preferential activities for extracurricular activities, which do not have a direct nexus with admission fees, syllabus etc. be defined as Core Education? For Example if students go for a picnic and a mishap happens, does it fall within the definition of deficiency of service and is it part of Core Education? Do educational tours fall within the ambit of the definition of ‘Education’
• Another example, if a school has a swimming pool and students of that institution drown on account of some deficiency or negligence of the authorities, would swimming in the school campus fall within the ambit of Core Education?  Does maintaining a swimming pool and teaching swimming be considered as a part of Core Education?
• Does defect/deficiency in service of any boarding / hostel facilities rendered fall within the umbrella of ‘Education’?
• Do coaching centers / institutions fall within the ambit of the definition of ‘Educational Institutions’
• Do institutions involved in vocational training like nursing, designing etc. strictly fall within the definition of ‘Educational Institutions’

38. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in Revision Petition Nos.2955 to 2963 of 2018 submitted that once the University is declared as ‘Deemed University’ all functions and activities governed by the University Grants Commission Act (UGC Act), fall within the definition of ‘Authority’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and would be amenable only to the jurisdiction of the High Court.It is contented that even if the Education institutions do not have a proper affiliation, Consumer Fora do not have jurisdiction to entertain the same.In our view even if an Institution imparting education does not have a proper affiliation in imparting education, it is not rendering any service and therefore, will be out of the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

39. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Revision Petition No.222 of 2015 vehemently contented that the complainant had taken admission in B.Ed course of the Opposite Party on the assurance that the said college was recognized by National Council of Technical Education (NCTE) and affiliated with the Opposite Party No.2, Uttrakhand Technical University, who subsequently came to know that the Institute was not recognized by NCTEand therefore sought for refund of the fees.Whether such an unfair trade practice post admission would fall within the ambit of the Act needs to be seen.As the Institution is imparting education though it has been not recognized by the National Council of Technical Education, it would not make any difference because it will be covered under the education.Thus, the said Institute would not be rendering any service as defined in the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

40. There may be instances where there may be defect/ deficiency of service in pre-admission stages by an educational Institution but as the educational Institutions are not rendering any service by imparting education, these instances will also not give any right for a person to approach the Consumer For a under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

41. Learned Counsel for the Educational Institution in Revision Petition Nos.1731 to 1733 of 2017 argued that imparting education in a school is not limited to teaching in a class room and involves within its ambit other co-curricular activities including taking out the students for educational trips etc. for their overall growth and development and improvement of their faculties.In that matter, the children were taken by the Respondents for an “educational excursion trip” to a place of historical importance, and it was contended that, any shortcoming or negligence during the course of such an act falls within the definition of imparting education and therefore shall not fall within the domain of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.Another issue which was raised is with respect to any defect of deficiency which may arise on account of a student drowning in a swimming pool maintained by the Educational Institution.We are of the considered opinion that such incidental activities of an Educational Institution while imparting education would also not amount to rendering any service under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

43. Now we address ourselves to the submissions made by the Learned Counsels in Revision Petition No.462 of 2013 with respect to Coaching Institutions.The question which arises here is whether the Coaching Institutions fall within the definition of “Educational Institution”. Learned Counsel appearing for the Coaching Centers vehemently contended that though the Coaching Centers are not conventional Educational Institutions, since they are providing Coaching and training to students of an Educational nature same principles that apply to the Educational Institutions would also apply to these Institutions and that this view had been taken by this Commission in Fitjee Limited V. Minathi Rath, I (2012) CPJ 194 NC.In this case it has been held that Complainants were consumers who sought to avail services for consideration and that Fitjee is the provider of the services and that they are Consumer Disputes.The issue that has been raised is that if the Coaching Centers were treated at par, as observed in this order, to be providing Coaching and training, to students of an Educational nature, then they too fall within the definition of ‘Education’ and, therefore, the services rendered by Coaching Centers cannot be constructed to be ‘Service’ as defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.

45. Weare of the considered view that conduction of Coaching Classes does not fall within the ambit of definition of ‘Education’ as defined by the Hon’ble Bench of the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar (supra).Coaching Centers cannot be equated to regular schools or colleges which are regulated by a Regulatory Authority and also confer a Degree/Diploma on the student who has passed in the examinations conducted as per the Rules and norms specified in the statute and also by the concerned Universities.Therefore, strictly speaking Coaching Centers cannot fall within the definition of ‘Educational Institutions’.We refrain from making any comments on the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Complainants with respect of Coaching Institutions indulging only in ‘rote learning’.

46. For all the afore-noted reasons, we are of the opinion that any defect or deficiency or unfair trade practice pertaining to a service provider like ‘Coaching Centres’ does fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora.

47. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Revision Petition Nos.3383 and 3384 of 2018 submitted that student, who took admission in Multimedia Diploma and Certificate Courses in 3D Animation, Visual Effects, Video, Editing, Graphic Designing and Web Designing, though fall within the definition of Vocational training, the programs are recognized by Karnata State Open University and withdrawals of any such program cannot fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora.

48. At the outset, a broad definition of all that comprises ‘Vocational Courses’ needs to be seen.Generally speaking, there is a three tier system in HR Vocational Training Program in India, which involve Certification level for 10+2 students, Diploma level Graduation programs.For example vocational program include courses in areas of agriculture, automobiles, information technology, air conditioning, lab technician, livestock management, films and television, tourism etc.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors v. Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association & Ors, 2017 (9) SCC 379, in para 22 observed that Vocational Courses are those Courses in which teaching is not on regular basis, though they play an important role in the grooming of students in the different fields.Vocational education can also be termed as job oriented education and trains young people for various jobs and helps them acquire specialized skills.

49. The Union Cabinet has approved a merger of the existing Regulatory Institutions in the skills space – National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT) and the National Skill Development Agency (NSDA) into the National Council for Vocational Education and Training (NCVET).

In view of the foregoing decisions, we are of the opinion that the petitioner here in that is the 1^st respondent do not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and it is not rendering any service. Hence this petition is allowed and the complaint filed by the complainant / respondent No.1 herein stands dismissed as not maintainable.However liberty is given to the respondent / complainant to take recourse to such remedy as is available to her in accordance with law.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 23^rd day of January, 2023

Sri. Manulal V.S. President             Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu R.  Member                 Sd/-

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member                  Sd/-

                                                                                      By Order

                                                                               Assistant Registrar