Delhi

West Delhi

CC/12/392

SUMIT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ocean Galaxy Marine Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

22 Dec 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:    15.6.12                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

Case. No.392/12                                                                                                                                 Date of order: 22.12.16                      

 

Sumit Singh Gusain S/o Shri Sukhdev Singh Gusain R/o Beagadha

P.O. Mohanchatti P.S. Lammanjhula Distt – Pauri Garwal,

Dehradun, Uttarakhand                                                                                                                                                                COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

Ocean Galaxy Marine Pvt. Ltd. 601,T.C. Jaina Tower-II

District Centre, Janakpuri New Delhi-110058                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   OPPOSITE PARTY

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT

         Briefly the case of the complainant is that he  himself enrolled with the Opposite Party an  education institution for course in G-P Rating in maritime  sector  on payment of requisite fee.   The Opposite Party gave false impression that their institution is approved by the Directorate General of Shipping, Government of India to provide GP Training.    The course started on 26.12.11 and completed on 7.1.12. The complainant was given four certificates. But certificate for basic mandatory course for crew members was not given.  The Opposite Party did not provide any training course in G-P Rating. Now the complainant came to know that the Opposite Party is not approved by Government of India to provide G-P Rating course.  Therefore,  the Opposite Party played fraud upon the complainant and there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part.  Hence, the present complaint for directions  to  the Opposite Party to refund his fee and pay Rs.1,00,000/- for spoiling career and wastage of valuable time of the complainant and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment and  deficiency in service.  

            After notice Opposite Party appeared and filed reply admitting that the complainant took admission with the Opposite Party.The Opposite Party asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complainant was provided with all the required four certificates.  They further asserted that they never told  complainant that their institution is approved by Government of India . They asserted that they have not committed any fraud and there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

            The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of Opposite Party wherein he once again reiterated his stand taken in complaint and controverted the stand taken by the Opposite Party and once again prayed for directions to the opposite party as prayed in complaint.  

 

The parties were asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit.   The complainant in support of his case filed affidavit dated14.1.13 , wherein he once again prayed for directions to Opposite Party to refund the fee and pay compensation .  The complainant in support of his case relied upon copy of prospectus, copies of receipts Nos. 1020 & 1022 dated 15.9.11 and  receipt No.1202 dated 31.10.11 , copy of selection letter dated 17.9.11 and  copies of certificates    The Opposite Party filed affidavit of Sh. Aman Kumar dated 1.10.13 wherein he asserted the stand taken in the reply  and once again prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

We have heard Ld. Counsel for parties at length and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.  We are of the opinion that the main controversy/ issue is “whether Sumit Singh Gusain  complainant is consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and the opposite party is 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 institutions 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 no.22532/12 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 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 an education Institution  for persuing course in G-P rating training  on payment of the requisite fee.  The opposite party is imparting education. Therefore, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court,  Hon’ble National Commission and  Hon’ble State Commission of Chandigarh consistently education is not a commodity and the Opposite Party is not service provider and the  complainant is not a consumer under the  Consumer Protection Act.

Therefore, complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act-1986.  . Resultantly  the complaint is dismissed.

Order pronounced on :

• 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