Sri Ashoke Kumar Pal, President

The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that the complainant took admission in Netaji Subhas Engineering College in B.Tech Course in Computer Science & Engineering and paid a total sum of Rs.54,250/- through Demand Draft being No.4734 dated 19.07.2017 and 473431 dated 19.07.2017 both drawn on SBI, Sadarghat Branch, Purba Bardhaman. Accordingly student’s ID No:1710901107 has been provided to the complainant.  Immediately after taking admission in the college of the OP before commencement of the classes the complainant on 02.08.2017 informed the OP intending to discontinue the course due to financial incapability to afford the educational expenses.  The complainant wrote a letter to the authority of the Institution for cancellation of her admission and demanded the refund of the amount which she deposited for the said course.  But the authority of the institution neither replied the said letter nor refunded the amount which was deposited by the complainant and hence this case.  In support of her case the complainant treated the petition of complaint as evidence on affidavit.

The OP Principal of the Institution contested the case by filing W/V and evidence on affidavit.  It was the contention of the OP that the complaint is not maintainable and this Commission has no jurisdiction to try any complaint of this nature. As the complainant does not come within the purview of the definition of consumer as education is not a commodity and the educational institutions are not service providers.  As such, there is no question of deficiency of service.  The OP also denied the other material averments of the petition of complaint and prayed for dismissal of this case as not maintainable.

Points for consideration

1. Is the complainant a consumer?
2. Are the O.Ps. guilty of deficiency in service?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons:-

Point No. 1 & 2 : - Both the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and as they are interlinked.

On perusal of the record along with the documents filed by the complainant it appears that the complainant was admitted in B.Tech. Course in Computer Science & Engineering.  Now the question is whether the complainant is a “Consumer” as defined in Consumer Protection Act.

It was the argument of the Ld. Lawyer for the OP that the complainant of this case cannot be termed as “Consumer” as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.  As the Education is not a commodity and the Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service, there cannot be a question of deficiency in service.  Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act.

In support of his argument Ld. Lawyer of OP submitted a list of citations e.g.

1. Pijush Kanti Mondal and Anr. Vs. The Principal Meghnad Saha Institute of Technology and Anr., in Complaint Case No:CC/10/2018, decided on 08.05.2019 by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal forum at Baruipur, South 24 Parganas.
2. Guru Gobind Singh College of Education vs. Rajveer Singh (First Appeal No.669 of 2012), date of decision 13.01.2014.
3. P.T.Koshi & Anr. Vs. Eleen Charitable Trust & Ors, reported in 2012 (3) CPC 615 (sC).
4. Maharshi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010(11) SCC 159=2010(2) CPC 696 S.C.,
5. Jaipreet Singh vs. FIIT JEE Ltd., First Appeal No.21 of 2015 date of decision 02.02.2015.
6. Mayank Tiwari vs.FIIT JEE Ltd., Revision Petition No.4335 of 2-014, decided on 08.12.2014,
7. Koshy and anr. Vs. Regional Institute of Co-operative Management’s Cases,
8. Herleen Kaur vs. Dashmesh Institute of Research and Dental Science and others, first Appeal No.102 of 2016, date of decision 17.02.2017,
9. Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj vs. Manisha Pandey and ors. Writ-C No.-49948 of 2008 date of Order 11.12.2018.
10. M.J.P. Rohalkhand University vs. Ravindra Kr. Jaiswal, reported in II 2019 CPJ 40 (NC).
11. Rejendra Kumar Gupta –vs- Dr. Virendra Swarup Public School, dated 02.02.2021 by the Hon’ble National Commission.
12. Indian Institute of Aeronautical Science –vs- Deepak Luthra, dated 31.01.2022, FA No.-1355/2013, by the Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
13. Anupama College of Engineering -vs- Gulshan Kumar on 20.10.2017, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

After careful scrutiny of all the citations as referred hereinbefore it is crystal clear that the complainant being a student does not fall within the definition of a “consumer” nor the OP being educational institution cannot be said to be service providers, as the education is not a commodity and, as such, the consumer complaint is not maintainable.  As the educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, the question of deficiency in service cannot arise at all.  As “student” does not satisfy the definition of “Consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act and as the educational institutions do not render any service to its students, there cannot be any complaint of deficiency in service and complaint before the District Forum is wholly without jurisdiction and not maintainable.  Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharshi Dayanand University (Supra) has held that respondent, as a  student, is neither “Consumer” nor University is rendering any service to its students, therefore, Consumer Forum have no jurisdiction to entertain complaint.

Therefore, having regard to the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and in view of the discussions made herein before we are of the firm opinion that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as the same is not maintainable.

Both the points are thus decided in favour of the OP and against the complainant.

Point No.3 : - As the Point No.1 & 2 have been decided in favour of the OP and against the complainant, there is no necessity to enter into the merit of the case.  As the instant case is not maintainable and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of this nature, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for.  Point No.3 is thus decided in favour of the OP and against the complainant.

In the result, the case of the complainant fails.

Fees  paid is correct.

Hence, it is,

ORDERED

That the complaint case be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest as not maintainable.  I pass no order as to cost.

Let a copy of the order be supplied free of cost to both the parties as per rules.               

            The Final order will be made available in www.confonet.nic.in .

            Dictated and corrected by me

                      Ashoke Kumar Pal                  

                               President