Hon’ble Mr. Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member

          None present for the appellant.

          Ld. Advocate Mr. Partha Sarathi Mullick appears for the respondent. He files BNA.

          Although the appellant is absent, we are of the view it should be decided on merit.

          Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with order dt. 05.12.2022 in CC/605/2022 passed by Ld. DCDRC, Rajarhat, not admitting the complaint being not maintainable, the appellant preferred this appeal.

          The Ld. Forum below did not admit the complaint with an observation that imparting education by an Educational Institution will not come within the purview of the C.P. Act. However, the Ld. Forum below gave opportunity to the complainant to take recourse of law available.

          The fact of the case is in short like that the appellant / complainant enrolled for BTech Mechanical Course before the respondent / Institution and paid Rs.1,10,000/- towards course fees. The complainant discontinued the course and prayed for refund of the said amount.

In support of his contention the Ld. Advocate for the respondent referred to the decision of Apex Court in the case of Maharshi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur wherein it is observed that “a student is neither a consumer nor is the educational institution rendering any service.”

          Similar view was expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 22532 / 2012 in the case of P.T. Koshy and Anr. vs. Ellen Chattarjee Trust & Ors.

          In view of the aforesaid facts of the case and position of law cited above, we find that the appellant / complainant is not consumer and no service has been rendered to him.

         Accordingly, A/39/2023 is dismissed. Impugned order is upheld.

          There shall be no order as to the costs.