Delhi

West Delhi

CC/13/685

ROHIT PHUTELA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARAYANA LEARNING PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

15 Sep 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                                 Date of institution               :13/11/13

Case. No.685/13                                                                                                      Date of Order:                       15.9.16

 

 

           In the Matter of

Rohit Phutela,

R/o C-2/106,West Enclave, Pitampura,

North-West Delhi-34.                                                                                                                                    COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

 

1. M/s Narayana Learning Pvt. Ltd.,

     Surve No.504, Chemudugunta Village,

      Venkatachalam Mandal Nellore,

      Andhra Pradesh. 524320.

 

2. NarayanaIIT Academy,

      15 Central Market, West Punjab Bagh,

        New Delhi-110026.                                                                                                                                         OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

 

R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT

 

                Brief facts necessary   for the disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant got enrolled his daughter Baani Phutela, with Opposite Parties for coaching classes for admission  in IIT by paying requisite fee.  The coaching classes had already started, therefore,   the complainant was assured by the Opposite Parties that daughter of the complainant will be given extra classes.  But the Opposite Parties failed to provide extra classes .  Therefore  daughter of the complainant  was unable to co-op  up wih the syllabus.   The same was informed to the Opposite Parties.  But they told the complainant that they will refund the course fee of one year.   The complainant requested the Opposite Parties to refund the fee but to no effect.  Hence, the present complaint  for direction to the Opposite

-2-

Parties to refund sum of Rs.56500/- and pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and  Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.  

 

                After notice the Opposite Parties filed reply while contesting  the complaint and asserting that complainant has  signed the terms and conditions/undertaking wherein they have undertaken  that the student will not leave the instiution before completing the full course.  They denied the allegations and asserted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. They are not liable to refund the fee and pay any compensation to complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

 

The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of opposite parties while controverting the stand taken by opposite parties and reiterated his stand and once again prayed for direction to the opposite parties to refund the fee and pay compensation.

     When the complainant was asked to lead evidence, he filed affidavit dated 26.4.14, wherein he once again prayed for directions to opposite parties to refund the fee and pay compensation as prayed in the complaint. The complainant in support of his case relied upon copy of  receipts  of fee No.0020527, 0020528, 0020529 and  0020530, , ID card, email dated 29.6.13, letter dated 2.3.13 for rescheduling the classes for 1214 candidates letter dated 28.5.13 and 29.6.13 for refund of fee and  legal notice dated 23.7.13. The Opposite parties  also filed affidavit of  Sh. Raj Vir Singh in support of  their version and asserted that the complainant is not a consumer and opposite parties are not service providers  under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the issue.

     We have heard the complainant and counsel of opposite parties at length and have gone through the complaint ,reply, affidavits and documents submitted by the parties and  are of the opinion that the main controversy/ issue is “whether daughter of Rohit Phutela, 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.

-3-

       Similar are the facts of the present case .The complainant’s daughter took admission with opposite parties for coaching. The opposite parties are giving 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  student is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act.       

      Therefore, complaint is not maintainable. Resultantly  the complaint is dismissed.

Order pronounced on :15.9.2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

• 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