BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.206 of 2016

Date of Instt. 10.05.2016

Date of Decision :27.06.2016

Jyoti D/o Sukhdev Raj R/o Village Johal, P.O.Bolina Doaba, Tehsil & District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.Pardeep, Manaing Director, IBT Institute Pvt Ltd., Punjab Air Tower, Opp.Bus Stand, Gate No.3, Jalandhar.

2.Sakshi, CEO, IBT Institute Pvt Ltd., Punjab Air Tower, Opp.Bus Stand, Gate No.3, Jalandhar.

3.IBT Institute Pvt Ltd., Punjab Air Tower, Opp.Bus Stand, Gate No.3, Jalandhar through its Managing Director.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Mrs. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Abha Naagar Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against IBT Institute Pvt Ltd., Jalandhar with the allegations that the aforesaid institute is providing coaching for job in public sector and has started various courses. Resultantly, complainant deposited Rs.2000/- as registration/admission fee charged vide receipt dated 31.8.2015 and Rs.5500/- as fee of the course through HDFC Bank. In all, complainant deposited Rs.7500/- with the opposite party to get training/education. Later on, complainant changed her mind and she did not want to join the classes. So, complainant approached opposite party for refund of the fee paid by the complainant but the opposite party did not refund the amount. Hence, the present complaint.

2. We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have minutely gone through the file on the question whether complainant is a consumer qua the opposite parties or not?

3. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that complaint can not be rejected in limini without giving notice to the opposite party. Here, this Forum does not agree with this contention of learned counsel for the complainant because this Forum has to see first whether complainant is a consumer and the dispute of the complainant is a consumer dispute, then and only then the complaint is to be admitted for adjudication. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that as per various decisions of Hon'ble State Commission and Hon'ble National Commission/Apex Court, admission fee for awarding education degrees and holding examination can be refunded to the complainant. Moreover, the opposite party is private educational Institution. As such, the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of 'P.T.Koshy & Anr Vs Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors' 2012(C) CPC 615 is not applicable. We have gone through various rulings cited by learned counsel for the complainant. All these rulings cited by learned counsel for the complainant are prior to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in aforesaid case 'P.T.Koshy & Anr Vs Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors' and are the rulings of Hon'ble State Commission and Hon'ble National Commission. The Apex Court in case 'P.T.Koshy & Anr Vs Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors' 2012(C) CPC 615 has categorically stated that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fee, etc., there can not be a question of deficiency of service, such matter can not be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986”. The Hon'ble Apex Court even declined the special leave petition. No where in the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has distinguished the educational institutionals i.e. Government Educational Institutions or private educational institutions. The Apex Court has categorically held that education is not a commodity and the educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fee etc, there can not be question of deficiency of service. Resultantly, we held that the present complaint is not a consumer complaint. As such, this Forum can not even entertain the matter in dispute in this complaint. Resultantly, we hold that present complaint is not maintainable. Therefore, it is ordered that complaint be returned to the complainant with liberty to approach the appropriate court/authority for redressal of her grievances. Copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Bhupinder Singh

27.06.2016 Member Member President