Haryana

Ambala

CC/467/2010

GAUTAM BHOLA S/O SUNIL BHOLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIIT. - Opp.Party(s)

ASHUTOSH AGGARWAL

22 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                           Complaint Case No.:   467 of 2010

     Date of Institution    :  04.11.2010

     Date of Decision    :     22.04.2016

Goutam Bhola s/o Sh. Sunil Bhola R/o H.No.6142/12, Palledar Mohalla, Ambala Cantt.

                                        …….Complainant                                                                                     

  Versus

1.         NIIT, Sudershan Tower, 2^nd Floor, opposite Dr. Garg Hospital, Cross Road No.1, Ambala Cantt through its Owner/Manager.

2.         NIIT House, Corporate Headquarters -85, Sector 32, Institutional Area, Gurgaon-122001 through its Owner/Manager/General Manager.

                                                                                                            ……Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:        SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                       

Present:           Sh. Ashutosh Aggarwal, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. S.M. Singh, Adv. counsel for OP No.1.

                        Sh. Keshav Sharma, Adv. counsel for OP No.2.

ORDER

                        Present complaint has been filed by the complainant alleging therein that to secure his admission in NIIT, complainant was to undergo an aptitude test and so he paid Rs.562/- on 25.04.2008 vide receipt no.3066 and also cleared the said test. It has been contended that Ops charged Rs.5169/- on 26.04.2008 as registration fee vide Receipt No.3067 for one year DIT course for the sessions 2008-09 and he waited till May 2008 for starting of new Batch and in the end of May 2008, LLB exams of complainant started and thus complainant informed the Ops that he would join the course after his LLB exams, so keep reserved his seat for new batch to be started in June 2008. When complainant approached the Ops, they told that new batch already started and he would join the studies but complainant refused to join the same as the 10-12 days studies have already passed. So, the OP suggested the complainant to join the batch of July 2008 and therefore, complainant got deposited Rs.5169/- dated 19.08.2008 vide receipt No.3481. Complainant further  contended that during the studies, he found that there was no qualified teaching faculty and their behavior was also not upto the mark. Moreover, the teachers were also changed many a times, practical classes were also not being conducted efficiently by the Ops and the syllabus was not covered within prescribed time. Complainant also got deposited Rs.1775/- three times on 22.09.2008, 21.10.2008 & 19.11.2008 respectively. Thus the complainant asked many a times for refund of his fees but they flately refused to refund the same rather misbehaved with the complainant. Hence, the complainant has contended that  there is  deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops and sought relief as per prayer clause.

2.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsels and filed reply to the complaint separately raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint since the present complaint does not raise any consumer dispute as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and suppression of material facts.  On merits, it has been urged that batches were started as per prescribed time but the complainant himself did not join the classes as the timing of classes was not according to him and his LLB exams were the main reason for not attending the classes, so the delay occurred, however, they had informed the complainant to join the institute. It has been further urged by the Ops that there was trained faculty for the programme having qualification as MCA (Master of Computer Application) and the complainant willfully withdrew from the programme without intimating the institution. Rest of the contents of complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal the complaint with costs.

3.                     To prove his contention, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW-1 alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for Op No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh. Y.P. Aggarwal as Annexure RW1/A alongwith documents as Annexures R-1 to R-10 and closed the evidence. Counsel for OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Rajiv Razdan as Annexure RX alongwith documents as Annexures R-1 to R-12 and closed the same.  

4.                     We have heard counsels for their respective parties and gone through the record of the case very carefully.  Counsel for complainant argued that the OPs despite taking fee from complainant did not intimate him to join the classes and were not having qualified teaching faculty and thereby failed to complete the course. Moreover, the teachers were being changed many a times.  Thus counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant has lost his precious time and money due to the fault of the Ops which is admittedly a deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  

                        On the other hand, counsel for Ops argued that the complainant was not fully serious in attending the classes and due to his own behavior, he attended the classes 10-12 days late and thus the complainant is at fault due to his own act and conduct.  Further, as per own version of complainant, he was also engaged in his LLB study and could not attend the classes of the course in time and left the institution willfully without informing them.  Moreover, the OP have qualified tutor for the said course. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  

 5.                    After going through the pleadings and record placed on file, it is not disputed between the parties that the complainant got admission in one year DIT Course with OP No.1. Complainant to prove his assertions leveled in the complaint, has placed on record documents Annexures C-1, C-3,C-4, C-6,C-7 & C-8 which are  fee receipts deposited by complainant with the OP institute for the said course, Annexure C-2 is the document whereby it has been shown that OP is having their Study Centre at Ambala Cantt and  document Annexure C-5 is the prospectus qua information of general public/students regarding courses offered by the OP institute and some other relevant information.  But from the said documents, it is nowhere proved that the OP-institute was not having qualified teaching faculty, infrastructure and they remained deficient in providing proper education to the complainant.  As such, the complaint prima facie appears to be a vague & baseless. 

                        Further In P.T. Koshy & Anr. Versus Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. reported in 2012(3) CPC Pg. 615 (SC), Hon’ble Apex court after referring to judgment Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 has held that education is not commodity and Educational institutions are not providing any service. Therefore, in the matter of admission, fee etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency in service. Such matters cannot be entertained  by the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

Further in case titled as Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Parshad Sinha, reported in CPJ 2009(IV) Pg.34 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme court has  held that the examination fee paid by student is not a consideration for availment of service, but charge paid for privilege of participation in examination.  It has also been held that education Boards and universities are not ‘Service provider’ and the complaints against them are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.  In another case titled as ICL Institute of Management and Technology Vs. Ranjit Singh & Anr. First Appeal No.166 of 2014 decided on 12.05.2014, our Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula has held that the complaint for refund of fees was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act before the Fora. Furthermore, Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redrssal Commission, New Delhi has given verdict in case titled FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Kumar Meena 2016(2) CLT Pg. 182 wherein plea of the complainant that Coaching Institutions are not conventional education institutions and hence consumer complaint  maintainable-Held- Consumer complaint not maintainable against the Coaching Institute-Same principle which apply to educational institutions would also apply to coaching institutions.

                        In view of the facts discussed & legal position enunciated above, we are of the view that present complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

           

Announced:22.04.2016                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                 (A.K. SARDANA)

                            PRESIDENT                 

 

                                                                                          Sd/-

      (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                      MEMBER