RESERVED
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
APPEAL NO. 765 OF 2014
(Against the judgment/order dated 17-02-2014 in Complaint
Case No.472/2012 of the District Consumer Forum, G B Nagar)
- The Chairman
Galgotia Business School
1, Knowledge Park
Greater Noida, U.P. ...Appellant/Opposite Party No.01
- The Director
Galgotia Business School
1, Knowledge Park
Greater Noida, U.P. ...Appellant/Opposite Party No.02
Vs.
Ms. Neha Sharma
D/o Shri Satish Chandar Sharma
R/o 11-B, Block B-5, Sector-34
(Opposite Church)
Dhawalgiri Apartments
Noida-201307
...Respondent/Complainant
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH, PRESIDENT
HON’BLE MR. R C CHAUDHARY, MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. SANJAI KUMAR, MEMBER
For the Appellant : Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Sri Devansh Bhardwaj, Advocate
Dated : 07-11-2014
JUDGMENT
PER MR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH, PRESIDENT
This is an appeal under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment and order dated 17-02-2014 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Gautam Budh Nagar in Complaint Case No. 472/2012 Ms. Neha Sharma V/s The Chairman, Galgotia Business School and others.
By way of the impugned order the appellants/opposite parties have been directed to refund a sum of Rs.2,57,000/- towards fees alongwith 10% interest and a further sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as
:02:
litigation charges to the complainant.
We have heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri Devansh Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the entire record.
It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the complainant was selected for P.G.D.M. Course (2012-14) for which the complainant paid Rs.2,60,000/- towards fees for full one year and attended the classes from 30-07-2012 to 03-08-2012. On 07-08-2012 the complainant submitted a representation for cancellation of her admission and refund her fees as her father was posted in Mumbai. The guidelines of A.I.C.T.E. for refund of fees are as follows:-
In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the courses, the wait listed candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), shall be refunded and returned by the institution to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. It would not be permissible for the institution to retain the School Institution Leaving Certificates in original. Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with the proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, whichever applicable.
The complainant claimed refund after joining the institution. In the course of P.G.D.M., out of 120 seats, only 95 seats were filled up and there was no any waitlist nor any student was allotted the seat which become vacant after the complainant left the institution and the case of the complainant is not covered under the guidelines issued by A.I.C.T.E. The Hon’ble Apex court in Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat V/s Director Health Services, Haryana and others (Civil Appeal No. 5476 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 11381 of 2012 has held as follows:-
Indisputably, it is a settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior Court, and if the Court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to nullity as
:03:
the matter goes to the roots of the cause. Such an issue can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The finding of a Court or Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. Similarly, if a Court/Tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction, acquiescence of party equally should not be permitted to perpetuate and perpetrate, defeating the legislative animation. The Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the Statute. In such eventuality the doctrine of waiver also does not apply.
It is further submitted that since law does not permit of refund of fees, the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum deserves to be set aside.
The learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that there is no error either of law or on the facts of the case in dispute between the parties in the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum against which this appeal deserves to be dismissed because since the father of the complainant was posted in Mumbai, therefore, the complainant was not in a position to continue study in the college of the opposite party and, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the refund of the fees deposited by the complainant. Notification No. AICTE/DPG/06(02)/2009 issued by A.I.C.T.E. states as follows:-
Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, wherever applicable.
It is contended that the opposite parties were bound to refund the entire fees of the complainant.
After hearing of both the parties and perusal of the record as well as the impugned order, we have come to this conclusion that this appeal deserves to be allowed being the case of receiving the education and refund of the fees beyond jurisdiction of the Consumer Foras as is the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. T. Koshy and another V/s Ellen Charitable Trust and others Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 22532/2012 decided on 09-08-2012 which reads as under:-
In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand
:04:
University V/s Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
We do not further find any ground to consider on the basis of the facts and evidence in between the parties and we are convinced to allow this appeal merely on this ground that there cannot be a question of deficiency of service since the education is not a commodity and educational institutions are not providing any kind of service. Hence this appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
ORDER
The aforesaid appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 17-02-2014 is hereby set aside. Both parties shall bear their own costs.
(JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH)
PRESIDENT
( R. C. CHAUDHARY )
MEMBER
( SANJAI KUMAR )
MEMBER
pnt
