25.5.2018

Present: Sh. Dhiraj Kumar counsel for the complainant.

Heard on the admissibility of the present complaint. The complainant who is a minor filed the present complaint through her father on the ground that she got admission in the school of opposite party No. 1 and paid the annual charges and tuition fee for 9^th and 10^th class. Further, she has submitted that at the time of admission the opposite party No. 1 assured that the school is affiliated from CBSE New Delhi. But after the admission in 10^th Class the complainant astonished when it come to her knowledge that the school is not recognized and affiliated for the Class 9^th and 10^th and there is no teacher in the school for teaching the subjects of 10^th Class which is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No. 1. Further, there is collaboration of opposite parties and examination center for exams of 10^th was allotted as school of opposite party No. 2 at Mansa. Further, at the time of filling of examination forms the name of father of complainant wrongly mentioned by the opposite parties as Gursewak Singh instead of Sewa Singh. In this regard a Civil Suit No. 192 dated 2.11.2016 was filed which was decided in favour of complainant on 10.7.2017. In last the complainant prayed for compensation on account of humiliation and harassment and litigation expenses.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also perused all the record on the file.

3. From the facts mentioned in the complaint and documents relied upon by the complainant we are of the view that this complaint relates to education sector and against a educational institute.

4. In this regard Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled PT Koshy and others Versus Ellen Charitable Trust and others 2012 (3) CPC-615 (SC) held that the matter relating to admission fee in a statutory function of educational institution and matter not covered under “service” under C.P. Act, so complaint under C.P. Act not maintainable. It is also 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 and such matter cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further, same view has also been taken by our own Hon'ble Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh in case titled Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa College and others Vs Manpreet Singh reported in 2015 (3) CLT-419.

5. In view of above mentioned citations of Hon'ble Apex Court of India and our own Hon'ble Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh, the present complaint is not admitted and accordingly the same is dismissed being not maintainable. No order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach any Appropriate Authority/Court or Forum to redress her grievance, if she desires so. Copy of this order be supplied to the complainant free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.

Member President/25.5.2018