Delhi

West Delhi

CC/13/740

ShriKhushDevSuri S/o ShriPremNathSuri - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ms. SwapnaDhawan Principal Campus & Beyond - Opp.Party(s)

11 May 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri

Date of institution:09.12.2013     

Complaint Case. No.740/13                                          Date of order:11.05.2017

IN  MATTER OF

ShriKhushDevSuri S/o ShriPremNathSuri R/o A-165, Rishi Nagar, Rani Nagar, New Delhi-110034.                                                                                                            Complainant

VERSUS

Ms. SwapnaDhawan Principal Campus & Beyond, 11/59 A, G.F., Tilak Nagar, Main Market, Mangal Bazar Road, Near Mother Diary, New Delhi-110018.     

Opposite party

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

 Briefly case of the complainant is that he took admission with opposite party for training of I.G.T.on payment of requisite fee. The complainant attended the institute for three months. He was not satisfied by the coaching. The complainant sent a legal demand notice for refund of security. The opposite party refused to refund the security.Hence, the present complaint for directions to the opposite party to refund the security alongwith interest and pay compensation for mental agony and harassment.

            After notice opposite party  appearedand filed reply admitting that the complainant took admission with the opposite party. They asserted that the complaint is false, frivolous and not maintainable.  More over there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. They further asserted that the security amount is only refundable after completion of 5 weeks intensive training module prepared specially for IGT. But the complainant failed in selection conducted by IGT in two attempts. The security amount is part of training cost and is refunded by IGT directly to complainant upon joining duties of IGT.

            The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of Opposite Party. Wherein he reiterated his stand taken in complaint and controverted the stand taken by the opposite party.  

When the parties were asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit.   The complainant in support of his case filed affidavit dated 07.05.14. Wherein he reiterated the facts of the complaint. The complainant in support of his case relied upon Ex. CW-1/1 and Ex.CW-1/2 copiesof receipts dated 06.06.12 and 07.06.12 and Ex. CW-1/3 legal notice dated 22.08.13.  The ooppositeparty filed affidavit of Mrs. SwapnaDhawan dated 05.08.14. Wherein she asserted the stand taken in the reply  and once again prayed for dismissal of the complaint. They relied upon copies of emails and copy of final assessment.

We have heard the complainant andMrs.SwapnaDhawan, AR for theopposite party at length and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly. 

We are of the opinion that the main controversy/ issue is “whether ShriKhushDevSuri complainant is a 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 institutions 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 no.22532/12 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 MayankTiwarivsFiitjeedecided on 8.12.14, in Revision Petition No. 3365/2006 titled FIITJEE VS DR.(MRS) MINATHI RATH, inRevision Petition No. 1805/2007 titled FITJEE VS B.B.POPLI, Revision Petition No. 3496/2006 P.T.Educationvs 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 vsMayankTiwari decided on 23.9.14.

Similar are the facts of the present case .The complainant  took admission with opposite party an education Institution for pursuingIGT course on payment of requisite fee.  The opposite party is imparting education. Therefore as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble National Commission and  Hon’ble State Commission of Chandigarh consistently education is not a commodity and the opposite parties are not service providers 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 :  11.05.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.

• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                          (R.S.  BAGRI)

MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT