Delhi

North East

CC/317/2024

HIMANSHU KUMAR CHOUDHARY - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S ACCURATE INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMNT & TECHNOLOGY - Opp.Party(s)

05 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 317/24

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Himanshu Kumar S/o Sh. Dinesh Prasad Choudhary R/o Barahat, Banka, Bihar, Also at:- H.NO. 4, B Block, St. No. 1, Shir Ram Colony, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.             2.       3.   4.       5.	M/s Accurate Institute of Management & Technology. Through Its Chairman/ Managing Director   Ms. Urvashi Makkar Director   Mr. Safdar   Ms. Tannu Bhatia Counsellor   Mr. Hari Om HR Manager/Accounts Officer   All at:- M/s Accurate Institute of Management & Technology Having its Registered office at:- 49, Knowledge Park III, Greater Noida, UP 201306	Opposite Parties

 

ORDER

 

     Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

1. The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against M/s Accurate Institute of Management & Technology through Its Chairman/ Managing Director (Opposite Party No.1) and officials of Opposite Party No.1 (Opposite Party No.2-5).
2. As per the complaint, the Complainant was looking for a suitable educational institute in order to pursue his higher studies for Post graduate diploma in management. The case of the Complainant is that believing assurances of the representatives of Opposite Party 1 educational institute, the Complainant made payment of Rs.20,000/- as advance registration amount and Rs. 1,90,000/- towards course fee. Later on, during induction the Complainant felt the all the assurances were false promises made by Opposite Party 1 as the classes were delayed and irregular and services were not satisfactory, hence, the Complainant asked Opposite Party No.1 to cancel the admission and issue refund. It is alleged that despite several requests, The Opposite Party No.1 have neither processed the refund nor give him any satisfactory service which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1. Hence, it is prayed by the Complainant that Opposite Party be directed to pay refund the price of admission with interest as well as the compensation and litigation charges.
3. Arguments heard on admission. Perused the file.
4. From the perusal of the material on record including the complaint, we find that the preliminary issue for determination of maintainability of the present complaint is as to whether educational institutions providing education and other incidental activities to the students come within the purview of the Consumer protection Act, 2019 and whether the Complainant, being student, is the ‘consumer’ under the Act.
5. These issues have been dealt with in detail by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs Surjeet Kaur (2010) wherein it is held that the education is not a commodity and the educational institutions are not service providers. Therefore, the students are not consumers.
6. The above mentioned judgment was followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs Ellen Charitable Trust and Ors. in SLP (c) No. 22532 of 2012.
7. Relying upon the above decisions by Hon’ble Supreme Court,  the larger bench of Hon'ble National Commission in its judgment dated 20.01.2020 titled Manu Solanki Vs Vinayaka Mission University in CC No. 261/2012 held that Educational matters do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, the Complaint is not maintainable.
8. In view of above settled position of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and followed by Hon'ble National Commission in plethora of judgments, we are of the considered opinion that Opposite Parties, being educational institute are not service providers and the Complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In view thereof, this Commission does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of aforesaid nature as the present complaint is not maintainable. Hence, the complaint is dismissed accordingly, with liberty to the Complainant to approach the appropriate Forum / Court in accordance with law.  
9. Order announced on 05.06.24.

Copy of this order be given to the Complainant free of cost.

                                               

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)