DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No. 540/2011

Ruchi Malhotra                                                                    

14, Suraj Nagar Chowpasani

Housing Board Ke Age, Jodhpur                                      ….Complainant

Versus

New Delhi Institution of Management

50 ( B & C), Tughlakabad Institutional Area,

New Delhi-110062                                                          ….Opposite Party

                                                Date of Institution            : 29/12/11          Date of Order        : 30/01/20   

Coram:

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

1. Succinctly put, the case of complainant is that she took admission in MBA course for the session 2009 - 2011 in New Delhi Institution of Management (OP) by paying annual fees/charges of Rs.1,90,000/-. Receipt dated 27/04/2009 and 14/05/2009 amounting to Rs.20,000/-and Rs.1,70,000/- respectively are annexed as Annexure-A2.
   1. Thereafter the complainant got admission in some other college and wished to withdraw from OP’s institute. The complainant personally met OP on 06/07/2009 and informed about the same, seeking refund of fee. It is stated that through various letters dated 13/07/2009, 19/09/2009 and 22/09/2009 and by registered post, UPC and personal visit complainant requested OP time and again to refund the fees.
   2. It is further averred that OP is approved by AICTE and as per Section 10 of AICTE Act it is to take all necessary steps to prevent commercialization of technical educational. In this regard, a public notice was also issued by AICTE vide advertisement number AICTE/DPG/06/02/2009 in which it was stated that after deducting a processing fee of Rs.1000/- amount collected towards admission/tuition fees should be refunded to the student/candidate withdrawing from the program. Similar directions have also been issued by Ministry of Human Resources and Development. It is thus stated that the complainant has suffered lot of harassment due to illegal and arbitrary act of OP.
   3. Aggrieved by the circumstances, the complainant approached this Forum for directions to OP to refund Rs.1,90,000/- paid towards fees with interest @ 12% per annum. Further to direct OP to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the harassment suffered and Rs.21,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. OP resisted the complaint and filed its written statement. Rejoinder and evidence are filed on behalf of the complainant. OP’s defence was closed on 07/01/2015. Written arguments are filed on behalf of the complainant.
3. Without going into the merits of the case reference is made to a judgment passed by Hon’ble National Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 261 of 2012 & other matters – MANU SOLANKI & ORS. Vs.  VINAYAKA MISSION UNIVERSITY (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VINAYAKA MISSION'S RESEARCH FOUNDATION DEEMED UNIVERSIT), decided on 20/01/20, the latest legal position as laid down in para 40 of the said judgment is reproduced below:

          There may be instances where there may be defect/deficiency of service in pre-admission stages by an educational Institution but as the educational Institutions are not rendering any service by imparting education, these instances will also not give any right for a person to approach the Consumer Fora under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

….that the Institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport, etc. except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

4. In the present case, complainant is alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice qua an educational institute. OP does confer a degree or diploma recognized by an approved authority. Hence as per the judgment (supra) the OP institute does fall within the ambit of definition of an ‘educational institution’.  Therefore Consumer Forums do not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and accordingly the complaint is dismissed as being not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.  

Announced on 30.01.20