Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/869

GGSIPU - Complainant(s)

Versus

NISHA - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jan 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision: 06.01.2016

First Appeal No. 869/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 28.07.2012 passed in complaint case No. 17/2008 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North) Tis Hazari, Delhi)

In the matter of:

The Registrar

Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University

Sector-16-C, Dwarka

Delhi-110006                                                  Appellant

 

Versus

 

Ms. Nisha

D/o Sh. Lakhi Ram

R/o House No. 919

Pocket-02, Paschim Vihar

New Delhi-110063                                                     Respondent

 

CORAM

 

JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL                 -                       President

SALMA NOOR                                    -                       Member

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

SALMA NOOR – MEMBER

 

Judgement

1.      By this appeal, appellant has challenged the order dt. 28.07.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum (North) Tis Hazari, Delhi. Vide this order the appellant herein is directed to refund to the respondent herein an amount of Rs. 38,000/- with simple interest @ 6% p.a. on the amount deposited by him till the date of its payment. Ld. District Forum also directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 2000/- as cost.
2.      Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant had applied for admission to B.Ed. Course for the year 2006-2007 in appellant/OP University. Since she appeared in CET conducted by appellant/OP and got 4302 rank. Complainant was called for counselling alongwith original certificates. She had appeared before Counselling Committee alongwith all the original certificates and mark sheets and after scrutinizing the same, appellant/OP issued provisional admission slip No. 12/1662 dated 20.07.2006 and directed the respondent/complainant to take admission in V.D. Institute of Technology i.e. OP-2 before the Ld. District Forum. Respondent/Complainant deposited Rs. 38,000/- as fee with the appellant/OP-1 University on 20.07.2006. On 24.07.2006, respondent/complainant went to aforesaid Institute i.e. OP-2 for admission in B.Ed. Course whereby the admission was refused on the ground that the respondent/complainant did not fulfil the eligible criteria for B.Ed. Course as had not obtained 45% marks in two main subjects, therefore admission was not given. Thereafter, she requested either to give admission or refund the fee of Rs. 38,000/- but appellant/OP-1 decided not to refund the fee. Despite sending letters dated 17.08.2006 and 19.10.2006 and legal notice dated 29.08.2007, the appellant/OP-1 did not refund the fee. Aggrieved by the refusal of the appellant/OP-1 in not refunding the fee, the complainant/respondent had filed the complaint before the District Forum praying for refund of fee of Rs. 38,000/- alongwith costs and compensation.
3.      Appellant/OP-1 contested the case. It was not disputed by the appellant/OP-1 that the respondent/complainant was given provisional admission to B.Ed. Course of the appellant/OP-1 University on 20.07.2006 and that a sum of Rs. 38,000/- was deposited by her as fee. It was also not disputed that the respondent/complainant in the graduation did not secure 45% marks in two main subjects, therefore, she was not eligible for admission in B.Ed. Course in the appellant/OP-1 University. It was alleged by the appellant/OP-1 that since respondent/complainant failed to secure 45% marks in the qualifying examination, as per condition in the admission brochure, her fee automatically stood forfeited and she was not entitled for refund of the same.
4.      Both the parties had led their evidences. After going through the pleadings and the evidences filed by the parties, Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint and passed the following order:
   • In view of the legal position, we are of the view that OP is liable to refund the amount of Rs. 38,000/- deposited by the complainant. Accordingly, we direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs. 38,000/-, the fee deposited by the complainant, with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit of fee till the payment is made to the complainant. The OP shall also pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- to the complainant as costs. The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of this order.”

 

5.      Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Forum the appellant/OP-1 filed the present appeal before us.
6.      We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7.      It is not necessary to go into merits of the case because present is a case of refund of the fee and there are latest judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it has been held that the educational institutions i.e. Universities/Boards are not providing any kind of service rather they perform the statutory duties.
8.      The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (2) CPC 696 SC.; Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha 2010 (1) CLT 255 (SC) as well as P.T.Koshy & Anr. V. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC) has held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions imparting education are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
9.      The Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1684/2009 titled as Registrar Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University V/s Tanvi decided on 29.01.2015 also held that a student is not a ‘consumer’. Relying upon the aforesaid cases of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble National Commission has also held that the educational institutions are not providing any kind of service. Therefore, in matter of admission, fee etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forums under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
10.  In view of the above discussion, present appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 28.07.2012 passed in complaint case No. 17/2008 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North) Tis Hazari, Delhi is set aside. No order as to costs.
11.  The complainant shall be at liberty to seek her grievances before the appropriate Forum/Civil Court in accordance with law. The complainant can seek help for condonation of delay in accordance with law laid down in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute 1995 (3) SCC 583.
12.  Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
13.  FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

(JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL)

3270399981102.  

 

(SALMA NOOR)

MEMBER