BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 31^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

O R D E R

SRI.H.JANARDHAN, MEMBER

This is the complaint filed by the complainant under section 35 of C.P.Act, 2019  (Herein referred as “Act”) against OP with a prayer to seeking relief for refund of the amount of Rs.37,500/- plus interest for  deficiency of service,  untrade practice and to  grant compensation to the complainant contemplated under C.P.Act.2019     

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant daughter  had joined OP institution to pursue her  PU studies. Further the complainant contacted OP for his daughter’s admission to the PU board for science stream PCMB combination. The team staff of admission section told the complainant to pay admission fee for half year PU course an amount of Rs.37,500/-. Later on  17.07.2020 the complainant paid amount to block the seat in the OP college. Further due to COVID pandemic, OP office declared work from home for the whole year 2020. The complainant shifted his daughter to his hometown and joined PU college there. Due to this on 04.08.2020 at 2.03 PM the complainant called PU college  and updated his intention to cancel the admission, till this date neither there was any intimation from the OP institution regarding admission nor classes were started. Again on 05.08.2020 the complainant went to the OP institution and submitted his application to cancel the admission. The staff of front desk promised the complainant that very soon they will get back amount which the complainant has paid at the time of admission. Further, the complainant followed for refund on 12^th  and 14^th August 2020 with OP institution. The concerned person of the OP institution have accepted cancellation, but there was no refund. The complainant neither got any intimation from the OP institution  nor the complainant’s daughter attended any classes. Further,  the complainant sent notice to the principal of the OP institution through RPAD, but OP had not replied to the above said notice. Being fed up of OP attitude complainant has filed this present complaint.   

3.  In response to notice, OP appeared through  its counsel and filed version and taken the contention that the complaint is not maintainable as the educational institute is not service provider. Complaint is frivolous and vexatious and with mala-fide intention  of making unlawful gain and to harass the OP filed this complaint. And OP have stated that after deducting Rs.10,000/- towards administrative and processing charges refunded Rs.27,500/- bearing cheque no.984780 dt. 23.09.2020 and cheque as duly encashed by the complainant on 25.09.2020 and due to pandemic COVID-19 OP has declared work from home for whole year 2020. As the OP have returned Rs.27,500/- of admission fee of the complainant then with unlawful intention the complainant has filed this present complaint and prays this Hon’ble Commission to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.   Complainant filed affidavit evidence  and marked documents P1 to P3. OP filed affidavit evidence and marked documents R1 to R5.

4. Heard arguments of both parties. OP filed written arguments.

5.  The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether this commission has Jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?
2.  Whether the Complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP, if so, entitled for the relief sought for?
3. What order?

  6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1: Negative  

      Point No.2 :  Negative

      Point No.3:  As per final order

REASONS

7.Point No.1 &2 :  It is admitted by the both parties that complainant had joined OP institution for PCMB combination and complainant had paid an amount of Rs.37,500/- towards admission fee and due to COVID-19 pandemic the complainant was not able to persue her studies in OP institution. And then the complainant decided to  cancel the admission. Further after cancellation, the OP had returned an amount of Rs.27,500/-, which is not in dispute by both parties. Now the crux of the matter is that an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been withheld by the OP institution towards administration and processing charges.

8. OP has taken contention that online classes were conducted by the OP institution on WEBEX and GOOGLE and created whatsapp group as per section allotted to students by OP institution. But the OP has not produced any cogent evidence to show that complainant has attended online classes which was conducted by the OP. Due to the pandemic COVID-19 the complainant was not able to attend the classes as she had been shifted to her home town Odissa. The OP fails to show that she has attended classes, it is bound  duty of OP to return advance amount which was received at the time of admission.  Further, OP has taken contention that Institution is not a service providers, but the complainant has produced citations of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in which it has ruled  that Institution is a service provider in judgment reported in Bhupesh Khurana and others V/s Vishwa Budda Parishad and others   dt.29.09.2020, that institution is a service provider and falls within the ambit of service as defined in the Consumer Protection  Act. But, in the decision of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, In University and Petroleum and Energy Studies V/s Anuj                  Kanwal, reported in 2020(3) CPR 84(NC) and in the decision of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Manu Solanki and others V/s  Vinayaka Mission University  and others, held that institution imparting education not proper affiliation is not rendering service. Hence, imparting education is not covered under C.P.Act. The main point for consideration is whether all activities associated with education institution whether they pertain to the admission such  they strictly a part of curriculum, where this activity is involving the course of  imparting knowledge. However, in the present case, OP institution imparting education to the students or training given to the young for preparation for the work of life. The OP institution imparting training and development of knowledge is main character of the students and formal schools. As such, OP institution cannot be  construed as service provider in the present case in hand. Though the complainant has taken contention that, OP institution  is a service provider, but on going through judgement of Hon’ble National Commission, and after referring  latest decision of Hon’ble State Commission, it cannot be construed that education institution is service provider. Hence, the contention of the complainant that OP institution is a service provider holds no water. As such claim made by the complainant cannot be entertained as per the  judgement rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission.  Accordingly, we answer the point No.1 & 2 in the negative. As such complaint filed by the complaint is dismissed.

9. Point No.3:  In view of our findings on the point No.1 & 2, we pass the following:    

O R D E R

1. The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is dismissed.
2. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the open Commission and on this 31^th day of March 2022).

List of documents produced by the complainant marked as Ex.P.1 to P.3 are as follows:-

List of documents produced by the OP marked as Ex.R.1 to R5 are as follows:-