Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/48/2022

Mrs. Samin Taj - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARAYANA Group of Educational Insitutions - Opp.Party(s)

22 Feb 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
8TH FLOOR, B.W.S.S.B BUILDING, K.G.ROAD,BANGALORE-09
 
Complaint Case No. CC/48/2022
( Date of Filing : 11 Feb 2022 )
 
1. Mrs. Samin Taj
D/O T. Illiyasuddin Age 37 years, Residing at No 96, 3rd Main B cross Behind R.T Nagar old Police station Kauser Nagar Bangalore-560032
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. NARAYANA Group of Educational Insitutions
Revenue head Melange Towers, 10th floor Sy. No-80-84, Huda Techno Enclave Road, near super market, PATRIKA NAGAR. HITECH City, Madhapur, Telangana-560081
2. Narayana-E-TECHO-SCHOOL
Represented by school Principal Door No-8, Near Sub-Registrar office, CIL Layout R.T Nagar Branch or Cholnayakanahalli Bangalore-560032
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. K.S. BILAGI PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. Renukadevi Deshpande MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 22 Feb 2022
Final Order / Judgement

 

 

 

 

 

ORDERS ON ADMISSION

 

The complaint has been filed against the OP Nos.1 and 2.The OP No.1 is the Narayana Group of Educational Institutions and OP No.2 Narayana E-Techno-School represented by its Principal seeking direction against the OP No.2 to refund admission fee of Rs.20,000/- with interest of directing the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.The complainant has produced receipts issued by the OPs.The OPs are the Educational Institutions.

 

Section 2(42) of C.P.Act, 2019 speaks about services which read thus:

 

“Service:- means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, telecom, boarding or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal services.”

 

The service to be provided by the Education Institutions does not fall under Section 2(42) of the C.P.Act, 2019.

 

We are of the considered opinion that the complaint under the provisions of C.P.Act is not maintainable before this Commission.This reasoning of us is supported by following two decisions of Hon’ble National Commission:-

 

(1) The Hon’ble National Commission University of Petroleum and Energy Studies (UPES) Vs. Anuj Kanwal reported in 2020(3) CPR 84 (NC) wherein it is held that Educational matters to do not come within purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thus complaint is not maintainable.

(2) The Hon’ble National Commission in Manu Solanki and 8 others Vs. Vinayaka Mission University reported in 2020(1) CPR 773 NC wherein it is held that if an institution imparting education does not have a proper affiliation in imparting education.  It is not rendering any service.

 

In view of the above two decisions, the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. We proceed to pass the following

 

  1.  

 

  1. The complaint against OPs Education Institutions is not maintainable.
  2. The complaint is not admitted.  Accordingly, complaint is dismissed.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. K.S. BILAGI]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MS. Renukadevi Deshpande]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.