Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/141

Anand Mohan Grover - Complainant(s)

Versus

Narayana Learning - Opp.Party(s)

17 Apr 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

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

                                                                                                 Date of institution:     04.03.2015

Complaint Case. No.141/15                                                      Date of order: 17.04.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Anand Mohan Grover R/o: 6-A, Greenview Apartments, 80 SFS, Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110064                                                                                                                                    Complainant

VERSUS

M/S NarayanaLearning Pvt. Ltd., A-1/171A, JanakPuri, New Delhi-110058                                                                                                                                                               Opposite party-1

Mr. C.S. Mishra Director, M/S Narayana Learning Pvt. Ltd. A-1/171A, JanakPuri, New Delhi-110058                                                                                                                     Opposite party-2

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

Briefly case of the complainant is that his son Dhruv Grovertook admission with the Opposite parties an education institution for coaching for engineeringenterance exams on payment of Rs.40,000/- as advance fee.But son of thecomplainant was not satisfied with the coaching and teaching method of the opposite parties. Heafter attending two classes left the institute.  The complainant approached and requested the Opposite parties to refund the advance fee. The opposite parties  refundedRs.25,000/- only after lot of persuasion. The opposite parties told the complainant that remaining Rs.15,000/- would be refunded after approval from the head office. But they failed to refund remaining amount despite repeated requests and  legal notice to the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint for directions to the Opposite parties  to refund Rs.15,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum and pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 15,000 for litigation expenses.

                        After notice Opposite parties appeared and filed reply raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable before this forum as the son of the complainant does not fall with in definition of Consumer in view of judgments of on Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in P.T. Koshy V/S Eilen charitable decided on 09.08.2012 and reported as Maharishi dayanand university V/S Surjeetkaur 2010 (11) SCC 159.

 On merits the opposite parties admitted that son of the complainant took admission with the opposite parties. They asserted that the son of the complainant left the institution on his own due to personal reasons.So there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their part. More over  as per the terms of contract the Opposite parties are not liable to refund fee under any circumstance but still the opposite parties refunded Rs.25,000/- after approval from the head office and deduced Rs.15,000/- towards study material , service tax and for attending classes for two three days and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

                        The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of Opposite parties wherein he once again reiterated his stand taken in the 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 his case filed affidavit dated26.10.2015, wherein he once again reiteratedfacts of the complaint. The complainant in support of his case relied upon copy of receipt of fee dated 11.08.2014, request for refund of fee dated 17.08.2014 and copy of legal notice dated 16.01.2015. The Opposite parties filed affidavit of shriSher Singh,wherein he has asserted stand taken in the reply  and once again prayed for dismissal of the complaint. They relied upon annexure R-1 copy of resolutiondated08.09.2014 andannexureR-2 enrollment form.The parties have also filed written arguments.

We have heardLearned Counselfor Parties at length and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly. We are of the opinion that the main controversy/ issue between the partiesis “whether Mr.Dhruv Grover, complainant’s son is consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and the opposite parties is service provider”?

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 complaint. Son of the complainanttook admission with opposite parties aneducation Institution for taking coaching forone year classroom programme for preparation for joint entrance examination on payment ofRs. 40,000/- as advance fee. The opposite parties are imparting education. Therefore as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commission of Chandigarh consistentlyeducation 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 :17.04.2017

• 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