CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.903/2006
MASTER SHLOK SACHDEVA
S/O SH. KRISHAN SACHDEVA
R/O H-61/D, SAKET, NEW DELHI
THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AND FATHER
SH. KRISHAN SACHDEVA
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
M/S WIGAN AND LEIGH COLLEGE (INDIA) LTD.
THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/
PRINCIPAL OFFICER/AUTHORIZED OFFICER
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT:-
1001-1005, 10TH FLOOR, ANSAL TOWER,
38, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:21.10.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav, President
The case of the complainant is that he wished to pursue a professional business course besides doing his graduation with Delhi University. Complainant wanted to pursue above course in morning, as he wanted to enroll himself as an evening student in graduation.
It is further stated that the officials of OP represented to complainant that OP is a reputed educational institution recognized by Indian government and its campus is at Sainik Farms, New Delhi near his house. The said officials of OP had further represented to complainant that he will also be able to study for a year in branch of OP, in United Kingdom and no extra payment will be charged for this, except usual course fee/programme fee. Complainant paid a sum of Rs.57,400/- to OP.
It is further stated that after receiving the amount, OP represented to complainant that it is unable to organize morning classes for the above course in the campus at Sainik Farm, as was assured earlier and that classes will be held in the evening in campus. Complainant cannot attend evening classes, as he was enrolled himself as an evening graduation student with Dayal Singh College of Delhi University. It was represented by OP that morning classes will be held in Hans Raj college which is at least 30 kms from complainant’s home. It was also revealed that OP’s college is not recognized by Indian govt. Accordingly complainant sought for refund of the amount but the same was not returned hence this complaint has been filed. It is prayed that OP be directed to refund Rs.57,400/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and also pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- towards litigation expenses.
OP in reply took the plea that in fact complainant is not a consumer in terms of section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is further stated that it was clearly explained to complainant that OP is an independent educational institution running its own courses and does not have any affiliation to any university in India or abroad and is also not recognized by the Indian Government. The said fact is also stated in the prospectus supplied with the admission forms. It was also explained to complainant that OP has many centres in Delhi and the decision of centres where the complainant will require to study will be sole decision of OP subject to the availability of seats and presence of total number of students for a particular course. The complainant readily agreed to all the terms and conditions of OP duly explained to him and enrolled himself in the four year Integrated Graduate Programme in Business Economics.
It is further submitted that the fact that about studying in UK or anything such like that was never discussed by the OP. The correct facts are stated in the prospectus with regard to imparting the education in UK or anything such like that was never discussed by the OP. With regard to the fact about revelation of recognition by Indian Government it is pertinent to mention here that the above said fact was clearly brought to the notice of complainant that it has no affiliation or/and is not recognized by any Government or University. The said fact is also clearly stated in the prospectus of the OP. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed as there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
The first point for consideration is whether OP is an educational institution and is recognized by the University or the Government of India. The fact remains that OP is not recognized by any Institution or University and OP has awarded imparted Graduate Programme in Business Economics. It is not an educational institution. It is just as a private coaching centre.
In fact this matter came up before the Hon’ble National Commission in case of WLC College India Ltd. Vs Ajay S. Bhatt – III(2016) CPJ 280(NC) - in that case OP herein was petitioner, and it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the complainant is not a consumer and that argument was repelled by the Hon’ble National Commission and the Hon’ble National Commission in para 12 has held as under:-
“I have considered the arguments…..
I find that in case of Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur(supra), the issue was related to issuance of B.Ed. degree, which can only be issued as per the Rules and Regulations of the concerned University. Similarly, in the case of Mayank Tiwari v. FITJEE Ltd., RP No.4335 of 2015, decided on 08.12.2014(NC), the complainant discontinued with his coaching on account of not being satisfied with quality of coaching. In the case of P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., Civil Appeal No.22532 of 2012 decided on 09.8.2012, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has relied on its judgment in case of Maharshi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur(supra) and has 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.” The facts of these cases relate to statutory powers and functions of the educational institutions or the quality of education. The facts of the present case relate to the administrative aspects and are different from the case cited. Moreover, the petitioner is not recognized by the AICTE as admitted in the reply and, therefore, it cannot be treated as an educational institution in the present case. Thus the petitioner’s act comes under the unfair trade practice as he did not collect the fees in February, itself and promised the session from March but did not commence the actual course even till August. As per Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 986, unfair trade practice is a subject matter that is covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”
In view of the matter discussed above, the complainant is a consumer. It is not in dispute that complaint has sought admission in evening class in Dayal Singh college at Delhi which clearly establishes that complainant has sought admission in the institution of OP for morning class which was near to his house i.e. in Sainik Farm just across the road where the complainant was residing.
The contention of OP that the availability of seats and presence of total number of students for a particular course is concerned, OP has not placed anything on the record that such a condition was there in the booklet of OP. OP has not placed anything on the record to show that complainant was informed that course will be started at a place according to availability of seats and presence of total number of students for a particular course. It is admitted fact that OP is not affiliated by a University or the by the Government. The OP was bound to refund the fee on account of non commencement of the course at Sainik Farm as represented by the OP at the time of seeking of admission by complainant. It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
In fact even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Controller, Vinayak Mission Den. Col. Vs Geetika Khare - III (2010) CPJ 26 (SC) has upheld order of the Hon’ble National Commission regarding refund of the fee.
OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.57,400/- alongwith interest @ 10% from September 2006. OP is further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
