DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.320 of 23-05-2014

Decided on 06-06-2014

1.Nikita Goyal Minor

2.Dishant Goyal Minor

Both children of Jatinder Kaumr Goyal S/o Ram Parkash R/o # 141, St.No.1-A, Punchwati Nagar, Bathinda, through their natural guardian/next friend Jatinder Kumar Goyal father of both.

........Complainants

Versus

Mount Litera Zee School, Opposite Sushant Lok-1, Kotshamir, Mansa Road, Bathinda, through its Principal/MD/Authorized Signatory.

.......Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainants: Sh.Narinder Kumar Singla, counsel for the complainants.

For Opposite party: Not summoned.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainants were students of the opposite party and had joined the school in class 6th and 3rd onward upto class 8th and 5th. The complainants are minor as such this complaint has been filed through their father/natural guardian/next friend Jatinder Kumar Goyal S/o Ram Parkash. After passing from the class 8th and 5th, the parents of the complainants has to shift from Bathinda to Goniana Mandi as such they decided to shift their children from the opposite party school to Delhi Public School and intimated the school administration after passing of respective classes. The father of the complainant approached the school administration on 2.5.2014 and requested them to give him the transfer certificate of both the children and wrote a letter regarding this to the school administration with his problems as they are shifting from Bathinda to Goniana Mandi. After receiving the application from the father of the complainants, the school administration requested him to come on 7.5.2014 and assured that they would supply him the transfer certificate of the complainants. As

per the assurance the father of the complainants approached the opposite party, but the opposite party demanded the fee for the month of April and May, 2014, on objection raised by him, the opposite party flatly refused to supply the transfer certificates. The result was declared on 26.3.2014 and complainant intimated the opposite party on the same day but despite that the opposite party has been demanding the fee for the month of April and May, 2014. Hence the complainants have filed the present complaint to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite party to deliver them the transfer certificates without any fee alongwith cost and compensation or to give them any other additional, alternative or consequential relief for which they may be found entitled to.

2. Preliminary hearing is given to the complainant and record placed on file by him perused.

3. The complainants have filed the present complaint against the school for seeking the transfer certificates and on the request of the transfer certificates, the opposite party has demanded from the father of the complainants fee for the month of April and May, 2014. The compliant in hand is regarding the 'Education', as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as P.T Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.(s).22532/2012 (From the judgment and order dated 19.4.2012 in RP No.605/2012), the education is not a commodity; wherein it has been held:-

“In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”

4. Thus in view of what has been discussed above the dispute regarding the education is not a consumer dispute. Hence this complaint is hereby dismissed in limini without any order as to cost. However the complainants are at liberty to approach the appropriate authority/court for the redressal of their grievances, if so permitted and advised by law.

5. A copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

06-06-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member