ORAL

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal No. 649 of 2005

AMITY Business School, Amity Campus,

Sector-44, Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar,

(U.P.)                                                                ...Appellant.

Versus

Neha Bansal d/o Dr. S.K. Bansal,

House no.29, Sector-8, Panchkula,

Haryana.                                                      .…Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Vikas Saxena, Member.

Sri Avanish Pal, Advocate for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

Date 18.2.2022

JUDGMENT

Per Sri Sushil Kumar,  Member- This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 5.3.2005 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Gautam Budh Nagar in complaint case no.210 of 2004, Neha Bansal vs. Amity Business School,  whereby the appellant is directed to return the amount of Rs.74,000.000 alongwith interest @ 6% p.a.

 According to the case of the complainant, she deposited two drafts dated 11.3.2003 amounting to Rs.94,000.00 and Rs.45,000.00 respectively for admission and hostel charges for the course beginning from 30.6.2003. Before starting the session guardian/maternal uncle of the complainant transferred to Jammu State, therefore, complaint filed an application to return the deposited amount, since she was unable to continue the study in the institute but the opposite party returned only Rs.65,000.00 and fails to return Rs.75,000.00. Therefore, complainant filed this complaint for seeking refund of the above mentioned amount.

The opposite party fails to appear before the ld. District Forum, Gautam Budh Nagar. Upon considering the exparte evidence, the ld. District Forum passed the above mentioned judgment and order.

(2)

This judgment and order has been challenged on the ground that this matter relates to educational institute and the dispute between the student and educational institute does not comes under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.

In Manu Solanki vs. Vinayak Mission University, I(2020) CPJ 210, it is held that the dispute relating to admission, deposition of fees, return of fees does not comes under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, ld. District Forum entertained the complaint beyond its jurisdiction and passed the judgment over it which is liable to be set aside.

ORDER

          Appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 5.3.2005 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Gautam Budh Nagar in complaint case no.210 of 2004 is set aside and the complaint is dismissed being not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

          The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.       

        (Vikas Saxena)                                (Sushil Kumar)

              Member                                  Presiding Member

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to record.

        (Vikas Saxena)                                (Sushil Kumar)

              Member                                  Presiding Member

Jafr, PA II

Court 2