Delhi

StateCommission

A/609/2014

GURU GOBIND SINGH I.P. UNIVERSITY - Complainant(s)

Versus

MS. KANIKA BATRA - Opp.Party(s)

15 Jan 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

                                                             Date of Decision: 15.01.2016

First Appeal No. 609/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 09.05.2014 passed in complaint case No. 458/2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, ‘M’ Block, Ist Floor, Vikas Bhawan, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002)

In the matter of:

The Registrar

Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University

Sector-16-C, Dwarka

Delhi-110006                                                  Appellant

 

Versus

 

Ms. Kanika Batra

D/o Sh. Vijay Batra

R/o A-24, Vivek Vihar,

Phase-II, Delhi-110095                                     Respondent

                                                                  

                                                                  

CORAM

 

JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL                 -                       President

SALMA NOOR                                    -                       Member

 

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

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

 

 

SALMA NOOR – MEMBER

 

1.         By this appeal, appellant has challenged the order dated 09.05.2014 passed by Ld. District Forum-VI in complaint case No. 458/2012, wherein the Ld. District Forum has directed the appellant/OP to refund Rs. 80,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of deposit till realisation. Rs. 21,000/- is awarded towards harassment and cost of litigation.
2.         Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant had applied for admission of Post Graduation (M-Tech) in Electronics and Communication Engineering for the batch of 2010-2011. The open counselling took place on 28.08.2010 for M-Tech where a seat was given to the respondent/complainant provisionally on depositing an amount of Rs. 81,000/-. The said amount was deposited by the respondent/complainant on the aforesaid date. Thereafter the complainant got admission in Delhi College of Engineering which was more appropriate for her. On getting admission there, respondent/complainant wrote a letter dated 30.08.2010 for refund of fee to appellant/OP. However, refund was not made. Thereupon, she filed a complaint before the Ld. District Forum for refund of fee and grant of compensation and litigation expenses.
3.         The claim was opposed by the appellant/OP by contending that the respondent/complainant was not entitled for the refund of fee and had placed reliance on Rule 6(x) of Chapter 10 of the Admission Brochure 2010-2011. It was alleged that the respondent/complainant had taken admission after second counselling in the residual seats without making any scope for any other student to be admitted in the said seat as such under the aforesaid Rule the fee was to be forfeited.
4.         The relevant Rule is extracted below:

 “6 (x) If a candidate drops out after taking admission in the second counselling, his/her full fee will be forfeited. It is advised in the interest of the candidates decided to take admission in the counselling only if he/she intends to pursue the programme.”

 

5.         Ld. District Forum after hearing the parties and considering the material on record had held the appellant/OP deficient in service and had indulged into unfair trade practice and allowed the complaint in favour of the respondent/complainant and ordered the appellant/OP for refund of fee and also granted compensation and interest as has been mentioned above.  
6.         Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Ld. District Forum, the appellant/OP has filed the present appeal praying for setting aside the order of the Ld. District Forum.
7.         We have heard Counsel for the appellant. Counsel for the respondent/complainant did not appear after the disposal of the application for condonation of delay.
8.         The main contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant is that the Ld. District Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as the present case is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act. It is contended that even on merits, the order is erroneous.
9.         As noted above, present is a case of refund of the fee and there are latest judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court that the educational institutions i.e. Universities/Board are not providing any kind of service rather they perform the statutory duties.
10.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (2) CPC 696 SC.; Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha 2010 (1) CLT 255 (SC) as well as P.T.Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC) has held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions imparting education 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.
11. The Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1684/2009 titled as Registrar Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Vs. Tanvi decided on 29.01.2015 also held that a student is not a ‘consumer’. Relying upon the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble National Commission has also held that the educational institutions are not providing any kind of service. Therefore, in matter of admission, fee etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Fora under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12. Respondent/complainant is seeking refund of fee from appellant/OP in such case there is no question of deficiency of service as has been discussed above as such the Ld. District Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the case.
13. In view of the finding on jurisdiction, we are not discussing the case on merits in order to avoid any prejudice to the parties.
14. Accordingly, present appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.05.2014 passed in complaint case No. 458/2012 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi is set aside. There is no order as to costs.
15. The complainant shall be at liberty to seek her grievances before the appropriate Forum/Civil Court in accordance with law. The complainant can seek help for condonation of delay in accordance with law laid down in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute 1995 (3) SCC 583.
16. Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
17. FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

(JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL)

3270399981102.  

 

(SALMA NOOR)

144616126.  

(f)