Delhi

West Delhi

CC/12/735

Sakshi through Guardian/fatherShriRam Prakash Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Narayana IIT Academy - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jun 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

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

Date of institution:10.10.2012

Complaint Case. No.735/12                                          Date of order: 03.06.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Sakshi through Guardian/fatherShriRam Prakash Sharma S/O Chet Ram Sharma R/O 316 SainikVihar, Delhi-110034                                                                     Complainant

VERSUS

Narayana IIT Academy, 15 central market, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026

Opposite party-1

Dr. P. Narayana, Narayana IIT Academy, Plot no.160, H.no.2-56/33/15/160, Survey of India, Madhapur(Post), Near ChandaNaik Nagar Thanda, Hyderabad-500081                                                                                                                   Opposite party -2

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

Briefly case of the complainantis that she took admission with the opposite party no.1in NBEV course on payment of requisite fee. The complainant attended the institute for one session. She was not satisfied by the coaching. The complainant left studies and sentdemand notice for refund of fee. The opposite parties refused to refund the fee.Hence, the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to refund the fee alongwith interest and pay compensation for mental agony and harassment.

            After notice the opposite partiesappeared and filed reply admitting that the complainant took admission with the opposite parties. 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 complainant herself left studies without any reason.

The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the Opposite Parties. Wherein she reiterated her stand taken in complaint and controverted the stand taken by the opposite parties.  

When the parties were asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit.   The complainant in support of her case filedaffidavit of her father. Wherein he reiterated the facts of the complaint. The complainant in support of her case also relied uponphoto copies of receipts of payment of fee and letter dated 13.05.2012 for refund of fee.  The opposite parties filed affidavit of ShriSherSingh  dated21.01.2016. Wherein he asserted the stand taken in the reply. He asserted that the complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act and in view of judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of india in P.T. KOSHY VS. ELLEN CHARITABLEDECIDEDON 09.08.2012 and MAHARSHI  DAYANAND UNIVERSITY VS. SURJEET KAUR 2010(11) SCC 159.Wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that education is not a commodity and once again prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

We have heardShri Ram Parkash Sharma father of the complainant andlearned counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly. 

We are of the opinion that the main controversy/ issue is “whether Ms.Sakshi the complainant is a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and the opposite partiesare 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 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 the opposite party no.1in two year classroom program-ETYCP-2013on payment of requisite fee.  The opposite partiesare 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 partiesare 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 :03.06.2017

• 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