Delhi

StateCommission

A/409/2016

SHIVANI SRIVASTAVA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S T.I.M.E EDUCATION PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

23 Sep 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

                                (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                                Date of Arguments: 23.09.16

Date of Decision:    30.09.16

 

First Appeal No. 409/2016

 

In the matter of:

            Shivani Srivastava

            B-5, Yamuna Vihar

            Delhi-110058.                                                                       ....Appellant/complainat

 

                                      Versus

 

1. T.I.M.E.Education Pvt.Ltd.

111/9, Ist Floor, Kishangarh,

 Aruna Asaf Ali Marg

Vasant Kunj

New Delhi-110070

 

 

2. TIME INSTITUTE

2527 2^ND Floor Hudson Lane

Kingsway Camp near NDPL Office

GTB Nagar

New Delhi-110009.                                                 .......Respondents                                        

 

CORAM

                                                                                               

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? 

 

•  

 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

JUDGEMENT

        The complainant has come in present appeal against order dated 27.06.16 passed by district forum (south-west) in complaint case no. 221/16 vide which the complaint was dismissed in limini.   The case of the complainant was that he visited OP 1 for preparation in the course of CAT 2016 for admission in B.Tech.  On 10.07.15 he paid Rs. 50,450/- for one year week end batch. He was waiting for starting of week end classes but was shocked to find out that batch was running on week days.  He contacted OP for running week end batch but OP expressed its inability. OP did not start week end classes for  3 months.  Complainant was not interested to continue with OP and asked for refund of the amount with Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of peace, loss of academic year and mental agony.

2.     The district forum  found that  in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharishi Dayanand University vs Sujeet Kaur 2010(11) SPC 159 and SLP No. 22532/12 titled as P.T Koshy vs. Ellen Charitable Trust decided on 09.08.12 education is not a commodity and educational institutions are not providing any kind of service.  Thus there could not be a question of deficiency in service and complaint under consumer protection act could not be entertained.

3.     In appeal the grievance of the appellant is that cases referred to by the district forum pertain to university and not coaching classes.  The counsel of the appellant relied upon decision of Patna High Court in Bihar Institute of Mining and Mine Surveying vs. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 608 in which it was held that coaching of students could not be held as education as it was not a process of training and development of students in normal schooling.  Similar view was taken by Gujarat High Court in Saurashtra Education Foundation vs. CII (2005) 273 ITR 139.  I feel that on the face of direct judgement under consumer protection act, judgement under income tax act is not relevant.  Decision of National Commission in Aashirwad Health and Education Institute vs. SLM Ahmed 2013(2) CPC 323 is not applicable as the same pertains to medical college which was not found to be recognised.

4.     Reference to decision of National Commission in Sehgal School of Competition vs. Dalbeer Singh holding that no institute or coaching centre would charge lump sum fee for whole duration. Decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education vs. State of Karnataka vs 2003 (3) SCC 697 are  not relevant as they re prior in time than the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T.Koshy Supra.  Decision of National Commission in Fitzee Ltd. In Rohit Binjrajka II (2010) CPJ 45, of this Commission in Fitzee Ltd. Vs. Minachi Rath IV (2006) CPJ 255 are not relevant for the same reason.

5.     During arguments the counsel for appellant referred to decision of State Consumer Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh in FA No. 88/14 decided on  30.04.14 titled as Shri Sukhmani Institute of Engineering vs. Rishabh Garg.  In that case an attempt has been made to distinguish between university and coaching institute.  But on the face of decision of National Commission holding the coaching institute is also out of purview of consumer protection act, I am unable to follow the decision of State Commission, UT, Chandigarh.

6.   I am referring to decision of National Commission in case of coaching institute in Fitzee Ltd. Vs, Harish Soni R.P.2054/13 decided on 08.10.15 to make out that coaching institute are also excluded from Consumer Protection Act.

7.     The National Commission has taken same view in Prabhmeet Bawa vs. Registrar Amity University 2015 SCC online NCDDC 3751.

8.     I do not find any infirmity in the order of district forum.  Appeal fails and is dismissed.

        Copy of order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

        Copy of order be sent to district forum for information.

 

                                                                                                           

    (O.P.GUPTA)

                                                                                    MEMBER(JUDICIAL)