Order No. 01
The petitioner files this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the OP Institute vide complaint case no. CC/605/2022 alleging unfair trade practices with a prayer for refund of admission fees.
It is observed that the document regarding proof of payment as admission fees was generated on 19th August 2021 whereas the the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is repealed as per Sec 107 (1) of the new Consumer Protection Act 2019 notified on 9th August 2019.
Further, as per complaint petition, complainant decided to get her son admitted in the Bachelor of Technology (Mechanical) at the OP Institute. As per statement in complaint petition (serial 8) inter-alia, the said course is affiliated to University Grants Commission for which she intimated UGC about her claim for refund.
The matter was taken up for admission hearing.
From the contents of the case as advanced by the Ld. Advocate of the complainant read with all records, it is conspicuous that this case is all about imparting ‘education’ by a recognised institution. But Education is not a commodity and students taking education cannot be said to be a consumer. There are exceptions in the cases of disputes related to ‘coaching centres’ with specific promises on coaching the students with or without job promise etc. In the instant case, it is found that the complaint is not falling under the scopes and meaning as ‘Consumer’ under the Act and hence, can not be taken up for adjudication in view of the latest judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other higher foras.
We have not gone into the merit of the case in hand.
There are a catena of recent Judgements in respect of the contention that ‘education - being not a commodity and students taking education, can’t be said to be a consumer and hence not covered under the CP Act 2019’. It will be appropriate to go though the relevant reportable Judgements of Apex Court & National Commission in this regards, as follows :-
SLP (C) No. 22532/2012 titled as P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors
"In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, 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. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition. Thus, the special leave petition is dismissed.
In the case titled Manu Solanki and Ors.Vs Vinayaka Mission University I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC), while addressing the issue whether an Educational Institution is a 'Service Provider' for the purpose of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Larger Bench of this Commission held: -
‘Keeping in view Maharshi Dayanand University (supra) has addressed on merits and the question of law in detail and the same has been consistently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy & Anr. (supra), Prof. K.K. Ramachandran (supra) and the latest decision of Anupama College of Engineering (supra), we are of the considered view that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the last judgment that is Anupama College of Engineering (supra) has to be followed.
It is settled law, as stated in the aforementioned precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Commission, that Educational Institutions do not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and not a "service" within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.Therefore, the Complainant is not a consumer and the Complaint not being covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."
LBS Group of education institute vs. Arjun Singh 2021 (1) CPJ (NC) 151 dated 31.8.2020 wherein, it is held as under:
“ We have heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. In our considered view, a preliminary Issue as to whether Educational Institutions providing Education and other Incidental Activities to the students come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not arises in this case and the said issue is squarely covered by the decision of a Larger Bench of three Members of this Commission in the case of Manu Solanki and Others Vs. Vinayak Mission University and other connected cases, 1(2020) CPJ, 2010, wherein the Larger Bench has held that Educational matters do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, the Complaint is not maintainable. Relevant portion of the Order is reproduced below for ready reference :-................
In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre- admission as well as post-admission, except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”
Civil Appeal No. 17802 of 2017 between Anupama College of Engineering vs. Gulshan Kumar and Ors. dated 30.10.2017 by Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein, it is held as under:
“In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur[(2010) 11 SCC 159] wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a verified 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."
Appeal case in the matter of Registrar, Manonmaniam Vs Sreosi Chatterjee & Ors. on 7 March, 2022 at NCDRC New Delhi in Revision Petition no 554 of 2019 against the Order dated 03/12/2018 in Appeal No. 905/2016 of SCDRC, West Bengal
“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 Fora under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The main purpose and objective of NCVET is to recognize and regulate and assess the skill related service regulators. It is clarified that even if there is any defect/deficiency/unfair trade practice in the services offered by private bodies in offering these courses and are not regulated and do not confer any Degree or Diploma recognized by any Approved Authority do fall within the ambit of definition of 'Educational Institutions' and hence the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain the same”.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport, etc. except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
As this Commission has considered all the records and documents and exhibits and the grounds stated in the complaint petition in hand and as the complaint is all about imparting ‘education’, after threadbare perusal this commission is of the view that the instant complaint is not falling under the scopes and meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. In view of the foregoing discussions and observations, the Complaint filed by the Complainant herein is not admitted being not maintainable.
However, liberty is given to the Complainant to take recourse of such other remedy as available under law.
Copy of this order may be provided free of cost to the parties as per CPR.
Dictated and corrected by
[HON'BLE MR. Partha Kumar Basu]
MEMBER
