Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/13/1454

VISHAL ARYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

/ NIIT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

SH. P.WAGHMODE

25 Jan 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1454 OF 2013

(Arising out of order dated 26.04.2013 passed in C.C.No.755/2012 by District Commission, Gwalior)

 

VISHAL ARYA S/O SHRI J.P.ARYA,

R/O LINE NO.2, HOUSE NO.131,

BIRLA NAGAR GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                                    … APPELLANT.

 

                  Versus

 

1. NIIT LIMITED THROUGH CHAIRMAN

    & MANAGING DIRECTOR,

    CORPORATE OFFICE (GURGAON DELHI)

    85, SECTOR-32, INSTITUTIONAL,

    GURGAON INDIA 122 001

 

2. NIIT LIMITED,

    THROUGH BRANCH HEAD,

    EXPRESS BUILDING, PHOOLBAGH GATE,

    LASHKAR, GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                                   …. RESPONDENT.  

 

             

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : ACTING PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

            HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA   :          MEMBER

                                 

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Lalit Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Deepesh Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents.

 

 O R D E R

(Passed On 25.01.2024)

         The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President:             

           Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.04.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.755/2012 whereby the complaint filed by

 

-2-

complainant has been dismissed, the complainant/appellant has filed this appeal.

2.                The facts of the case as narrated by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) are that the complainant took admission in ‘Diploma in System & Networking’ on 30.10.2011 in the opposite party no.2-institution. It is alleged by the complainant that the said course was of one year but after five months without completing the course, the opposite parties closed their branch at Gwalior and the complainant was asked to complete the remaining course from Delhi. It is also alleged that it was assured that remaining course of 7 months will be completed in one month and diploma will be provided. He therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties filed a complaint before the District Commission.

3.                The opposite parties in their reply before the District Commission have submitted that NIIT Ltd. is a system driven organization, wherein every student information is made available to the student. It is stated that as per records of the opposite party, the complainant had taken admission in the program GFD2R on 30.09.2011 vide registration No.R121104700704. The said program consists of two semesters namely Foundation and Semester-2.  The complainant paid a sum of Rs.20,506/- against the total fee of Rs.42,000/- and failed to pay remaining course fee

-3-

of Rs.21,494/-. The complainant cleared the foundation semester with 61% marks which is made available on the student portal. Thereafter he was allotted the fresh batch on 26.12.2011. The complainant attended 5 sessions of classroom teaching. As the complainant failed to pay the remaining fee of Rs.21,494/- thus became defaulter and disentitled himself to receive any service further. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant did not deposit the remaining course fee but did not consider the point that in mid-session, the opposite parties closed their branch at Gwalior in such circumstances, how can the complainant be expected to deposit remaining fee. He argued that the District Commission did not consider the affidavits of two other students in order to prove that the opposite parties closed their Gwalior branch in mid-session due to which other students including complainant could not have completed their courses. He argued that the impugned order is against the documents filed on record and therefore deserves to be set-aside. He therefore prayed that by setting aside the impugned order this appeal be allowed.

 

-4-

6.                On the contrary, learned counsel for the opposite parties-institution supporting the impugned order argued that since the complainant failed to deposit the remaining course fee therefore he was not permitted to attend further classes. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the institution. The District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint as the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service against the opposite parties.  He therefore prayed that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7.                After considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we find that the complainant in his complaint as also in his affidavit has nowhere stated that the opposite parties closed their branch at Gwalior in mid-session. Instead he has alleged that the opposite parties have committed fraud with the students.

8.                Only after filing of reply of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed his counter affidavit and affidavits of two students namely Himanshu Pandey & Sachin Tiwari stating that despite deposition of more than 70% fee, the opposite parties without completing the course fled away by committing fraud with the students appears to be an afterthought. It is pertinent to mention that allegations made in the complaint with regard to cheating and fraud are outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.

-5-

9.                The opposite parties have clearly stated that the complainant did not deposit the remaining course fee and the amount of part fee which he had already deposited with the opposite parties for that he had already attended the classes and after appearing the examination cleared the same. Therefore, the question of refund of fee does not arise. 

10.              Also we find that the issue involved in the matter as to whether educational institutions providing education and other activities to the students come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not is squarely covered by the decision of larger bench of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Manu Solanki & Ors Vs Vinayak Mission University and other connected cases, I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC) wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that “Educational matters do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore the complaint filed by the complainant/student is not maintainable.  Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain such complaints.”  Same view has been taken by the National Commission following the decision of Manu Solanki (supra) in NIIT Institute for Finance Banking and Insurance Training Ltd. Vs Abhishek Tiwari III (2020) CPJ 306 (NC) and in the case of Rai Technology University Vs Prakurthi N. V. I (2023) CPJ 154 (NC).

 

-6-

11.              In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in Manu Solanki (supra), the opposite parties do not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as they are not rendering any service and therefore the complainant cannot be termed as consumer and the dispute cannot be termed as consumer dispute.

12.              For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the District Commission does not call for any interference by this Commission. Accordingly it is affirmed.

13.              In the result, this appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 

 

      (A. K. Tiwari)      (Dr. Srikant Pandey)   (D. K. Shrivastava)

   Acting President              Member                     Member