Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/292

Manan Malik - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIMS Infotech - Opp.Party(s)

24 Sep 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                                         Date of Institution: 15.5.14

Case. No.292/14                                                                                                                       Date of order:            24.9.16

 

In the matter of

 

Manan Malik,

GH-5 & 7/1197, Paschim Vihar,

New Delhi-87.                                                                                                         COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

NIMS INFOTECH

(Authorised Study Center of Bright Professionals)

B-53, Ist Floor , New Krishna Park,

Janak Puri, New Delhi.                                                                                          OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT.

            Briefly case of the complainant  is that he took admission with the Opposite Party education institution for persuing C.A Final Costing course  on payment of Requisite fee batch taken by Mr. Parag Gupta.  .  The complainant  requested the Opposite Party  to shift his batch.   The Opposite Party shifted his batch .     The Opposite Party told the complainant  that now taken by Mr. Parag Gupta is not available at their institute.   Therefore, the complainant requested the Opposite Party for refund of fee.   But the Opposite Party failed to refund the fee.    Hence the present complaint for direction to Opposite Party to refund the fee received by them. 

-2-

 

            Notice was issued to Opposite Party.   None appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party was  proceeded exparte vide order dated 9.10.14.  

            The complainant  was asked to lead exparte evidence by way of affidavit.  The complainant  filed affidavit dated 6.12.14 wherein he once again reiterated his stand taken in the complaint and prayed for direction to the Opposite Party to refund the fee.   In support of his version he filed copy of receipt dated 25.11.13 and  letter for shifting of batch.   

We have appraised material on record carefully.  We are of the opinion that the main controversy/issue involved is “whether Manan Malik , complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and the Opposite Party is a service provider”?

 

      These issues have been dealt in detail by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case reported as MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY VS SURJEET KAUR 2010 (11)Supreme Court Cases 159.  Wherein it is held that education is not a commodity. The educational institutionals are not service providers. Therefore the students are not consumers. Similar view is taken by another bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in special leave petition no22532/12 titled P.T.KOSHY& ANR VS ELLEN CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS decided on 9.8.12.  Similar view is taken by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition no 1684/2009 titled as REGISTRAR ,GGS INDERAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY VS MISS TANVI decided on 29.1.2015 ,in Revision Petition No 4335/14 titled as Mayank Tiwari vs  Fiitjee decided on 8.12.14, in Revision Petition No 3365/2006 titled FIITJEE VS DR.(MRS) MINATHI RATH, in Revision Petition No 1805/2007 titled FITJEE VS B.B.POPLI, Revision Petition No 3496/2006 P.T.Education vs Dr MINATHI and in Revision Petition No 2660/2007  all decided on 14.11.11 by common order .   Similar view is also taken by Hon’ble  State

-3-

Commission of Chandigarh in Appeal no 244/2014 titled M/s fiitjee ltd vs Mayank Tiwari decided on 23.9.14.

       Similar are the facts of the present case .The complainant took admission with opposite party for persuing C.A. course with opposite Party’s institute .  The opposite party is giving education. Therefore as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court,  Hon’ble National Commission and  Hon’ble State Commission of Chandigarh time and again education is not a commodity and the opposite party is not service provider and the  student is not a consumer under the  Consumer Protection Act.      Therefore, complaint is not maintainable. Resultantly  the complaint is dismissed.

Order pronounced on :24.09.2016

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.

Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                          (URMILA GUPTA)              (R.S.  BAGRI)

  MEMBER                                          MEMBER                            PRESIDENT