Delhi

West Delhi

CC/12/710

ARTI SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S KNOWLEGE TREE - Opp.Party(s)

24 Oct 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                     Date of institution    :27.9.12

 

Complaint Case. No 710/12                                                                      Date of order:24.10.16              

 

 

In the matter of

 

Arti Singh,

W/o Awadhesh Prasad Singh,

R/o RZ-476, C Street No.114A,

Kailash Puri Extn.

Palam Colony, New Delhi-45.                                                                             COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

M/s Knowledge Tree,

through its proprietor,

11/77,West Punjabi Bagh,

New Delhi-26.                                                                                                         OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT

 

            Briefly the case of the complainant  is that the  complainant registered her name  with the Opposite Party an  educational institution for persuing course in bachelor in Transformation of Secondary Education (BTSE) on payment of Rs.25000/- as registration fee

2

on 18.11.2011.  When the complainant  visited the Opposite Party to pay second instalment of fee, she was informed that her registration was cancelled due to change in criteria. The complainant requested to resolve her problem and  refund her registration fee but the same was denied by the Opposite Party.  Hence the present complaint with the prayer for direction to the Opposite Party to refund registration fee of  Rs.25,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for loss of one golden academic year and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

            After notice Opposite Party appeared and filed reply denying the allegations against the Opposite Party.   They took preliminary objections that the Opposite Party is run by a company namely Mother’s Pride Education Personna Pvt. Ltd. duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956.  The complainant did not implead the company as Opposite Party hence the complaint is bad for misjoinder of necessary party.  .  They further asserted  that the complainant  has not taken any service for consideration from the Opposite Party as per the contents of the complaint. Therefore, she is  not a consumer u/s2(d) of the  Consumer Protection Act.   They further asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.  On merits, they asserted that the complainant approached the Opposite Party for seeking admission in the BTSE course for the year  2011-12.  The complainant was told that the admission process for 2011-12 had been already closed.  The complainant  pressed for reservation of seat for academic year 2012-13,therefore,Opposite Party registered her name on payment of Rs.25,000/- as registration fee which was nonrefundable.  It is further asserted that the complainant  after depositing the registration fee never returned for persuing the course.  Therefore, there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

 

            The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the Opposite Party, wherein she once again reiterated the stand taken by her in the complaint and controverted the stand taken by the Opposite Party.

 

            The parties were asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit.  The complainant  in support of her case filed affidavit dated 7.7.14, wherein she has once again reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.  The complainant  in support of her case relied upon  receipt No.11556 dated 1811.11.  The Opposite Party filed affidavit of Sh. Anil Banbah dated 9.9.14 reiterating their stand taken in the reply and controverting the stand of the complainant.

 

3

 

            We have heard the complainant in person and counsel for Opposite Party at length and have gone through the material placed on record.  We are of the opinion that the main controversy/issue   is “whether  Arti Singh complainant is consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and the Opposite Party is service provider”?      

 

  These issues have been dealt in detail by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case reported as MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY VS SURJEET KAUR 2010 (11)Supreme Court Cases 159 .  Wherein it is held that education is not a commodity. The educational institutionals are not service providers. Therefore, the students are not consumers. Similar view is taken by another bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in special leave petition no22532/12 titled P.T.KOSHY& ANR VS ELLEN CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS decided on 9.8.12.  Similar view is taken by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition no 1684/2009 titled as REGISTRAR ,GGS INDERAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY VS MISS TANVI decided on 29.1.2015 ,in Revision Petition No 4335/14 titled as Mayank Tiwari vs  Fiitjee decided on 8.12.14, in Revision Petition No 3365/2006 titled FIITJEE VS DR.(MRS) MINATHI RATH, in Revision Petition No 1805/2007 titled FITJEE VS B.B.POPLI, Revision Petition No 3496/2006 P.T.Education vs Dr MINATHI and in Revision Petition No 2660/2007  all decided on 14.11.11 by common order.   Similar view is also taken by Hon’ble  State Commission of Chandigarh in Appeal no 244/2014 titled M/s fiitjee ltd vs Mayank Tiwari decided on 23.9.14.

       Similar are the facts of the present complaint.  The complainant registered her name with opposite party an educational Institution for pursuing BTSE Course on payment of Rs.25,000/- as registration fee.  The opposite party is imparting education. Therefore, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court,  Hon’ble National

4

Commission and  Hon’ble State Commission of Chandigarh time and again education is not a commodity and the opposite party is not service provider and the  complainant is not a consumer under the  Consumer Protection Act.

 

      Therefore, complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act-1986.  . Resultantly  the complaint is dismissed.

 

Order pronounced on :24.10.2016

 

 

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                          (URMILA GUPTA)              (R.S.  BAGRI)

  MEMBER                                          MEMBER                            PRESIDENT