Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/793

GURPARTAP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARAYAN GROUP OF EDUCATION INSTITUTION - Opp.Party(s)

19 Dec 2016

ORDER

Present:- Counsel for complainant

We have heard  counsel for complainant on admission hearing 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 Gurpartap singh, complainant, is consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and the opposite parties are service providers”?

      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 institutionals 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 no22532/12 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 Mayank Tiwari vs  Fiitjee decided on 8.12.14, in Revision Petition No 3365/2006 titled FIITJEE VS DR.(MRS) MINATHI RATH, in Revision Petition No 1805/2007 titled FITJEE VS B.B.POPLI, Revision Petition No 3496/2006 P.T.Education vs 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 vs Mayank Tiwari decided on 23.9.14.

       Similar are the facts of the present case .The complainant  took admission with opposite party(education Institution) on payment of the 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 time and again 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 :19.12.2016

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

• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                            (URMILA GUPTA)                                (R.S.  BAGRI)

  MEMBER                                                             MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT