SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the OP to refund Rs.88,000/- with 12% interest to the complainant along with of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and cost of the proceedings for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
The brief of the complaint :
The complainant’s daughter Mariya Sheril.P.M has completed plus 2 examination and she intended to join the degree course. At that time the complainant noticed the OP’s advertisement regarding ACCA course. As per the advertisement and assurance of OP the complainant’s daughter joined the ACCA course. As per the advertisement OP assured that the job opportunity and air conditioned building with all facilities given to complainant’s daughter. Moreover the OP assured that PHD faculties are also conducting the classes. Then the complainant paid Rs.88,000/- as tuition fee for 9 papers. On13/6/2022 the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- as tuition fee to OP and on 24/6/2022 he also paid Rs.78,000/- to OP. Then the classes started on27/6/2022 and after 4 days the OP’s discontinue the course. The OP intentionally cheated the complainant by making payment. Then the complainant approach the OP to refund the amount. But OP not ready to refund the same. The act of OP the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. Hence the complaint.
After filing the complaint, notice issued to OP . After receiving the notice the OP not appeared before the commission and not filed his version. Then the commission had to hold that the OP is set exparte.
Even though the OP has remained ex-parte it is for the complainant to establish the allegations made by him against the OP. Hence the complainant was called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents. The complainant has chosen to produce his affidavit along with 3 documents marking them as Exts.A1 to A3. The complainant was examined as PW1. Ext.A1 is the cash receipt dtd.13/6/2022 for an amount of Rs.10,000/- to OP. Ext.A2 is the cash receipt(tuition fee) dtd.24/6/2022 for an amount of Rs.78,000/- to OP. Ext.A3 is Senior School Certificate, marks statement cum certificate of Mariya Sheril.P.M. After receiving the tuition fee of Rs.88,000/- from the complainant, the OP is not ready to continue the ACCA course.
As considering this case even though the OP is set exparte, the complainant has to prove his case and the deficiency of service of the OP. Then the commission had to raise the following issues.
- Whether the complainant is a consumer?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of OP?
Issue No1&2 taken together:
The education is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act and the complainant is not a consumer. So the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.
The Hon’ble Supreme court in SCC2010(11)159 Maharshi Dayanand University Vs Surjeet Kaur 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 Consumer Protection Act.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exts:
A1&A2- Receipts dtd.13/6/22,24/6/22
A3- Mark list of Mariya Sheril.P.M
PW1-T.M.Faizal-complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
