This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that she had to pay Rs.47,865/- vide cheque no.546429 dated 19-06-2014 as first instalment for registration and got the ID/Password along with the receipt from the OP/NIIT for admission and to observe the system.
The specific case of the complainant is that since she was interested on Bigdata system of Analytic course and accordingly she contacted Mr. Partha Saha of M/s. NIIT Ltd. at Kakurgachi, Kolkata who misled her father Mr. Amit Bose saying that their Institute gives Graduate Certificate on the said system and the total course fee for six months would be Rs.1,50,000/-. But on the first day while going through the course, she understood that the said course is not at all Bigdata and NIIT is misleading all of the students. After chasing, their Kakurgachi NIIT Branch admitted their fault and advised them to communicate with Mrs. Ekta Upadhayay (NIIT HO Staff) who would refund the money. Though several persuasions were made by the complainant and on 05-07-2014 she personally sent mail to Mr. Somsubhra of Kakurgachi Branch staff/OP for the same. Even then on 15th July, 17th July and 19th July, 2014, so many mails were sent to them, but the OP did not pay any heed and ultimately she along with her father went to NIIT and tried to meet with Mr. Partha Saha, the Director, but all in vain to get back the money being paid to them. Being aggrieved, the complainant sent a letter to their H.O. at Gurgaon on 26th August, 2014 and asked the OP to refund the money or else the matter would be taken up before the Consumer Forum. Even though there is no replyfrom them. So, it is very much clear that NIIT/OP is snatching money with dishonest way.
Hence, this case.
In its written version, the OP/NIIT Ltd. stated that the complainant herself discontinued the course and after attending the course and receiving study materials was not entitled for refund of the fee which is being contrary to the terms and conditions as envisaged in the student Hand Book governing her. It is also stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP, therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Fact remains, the complainant took admission on 09-06-2014 in the course namely post graduate certificate in Business Analytics (PGCBA) at the Kakurgachi Centre of OP2 and filled the admission form on her own and she also duly signed the admission form on 09-06-2014 and accordingly the programme commenced on 14-06-2014 and on the same day study materials was also provided to them. But after attending the classes, the complainant approached the centre Head and sought refund of the fee. It is further stated that as per the student Handbook, the complainant was not entitled for refund of the fee after having attended the classes and receiving the study materials from them. So, it is the submission of the OP/NIIT that the complainant was bound by the terms and conditions of the student Handbook which is applicable to the complainant who also gave an undertaking to abide by the same by signing the declaration on 09-06-2014 which was envisaged in the application form dated 09-06-2014 duly signed by the student.
Decision with Reasons
On proper consideration of the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and on careful consideration of the complaint and written version and also considering the materials on record, we find that the complainant got admitted on 09-06-2014 in the course namely Post Graduate Certificate in Business Analytics (PGCBA) at the Kakurgachi Centre of OP2 and filled the admission form duly signed by her and deposited Rs.47,865/- vide cheque no.546429 dated 14th June, 2014 as first instalment against her ID – 5151111700064 and Registration No.R151111700081 and Receipt cum Invoice No.1111715000382 dated 19-06-2014.
The main contention of the complainant is that on the very first day of beginning of the course she realized that this course is not at all matched with the Bigdata system which she was intended to study at the OP/NIIT. Fact remains immediately she pointed out to the OP2 who admitted their fault and the OP advised her to take up the matter with Mrs. Ekta Upadhayay NIIT H.O. staff for refund of the money being paid to them. Though on several occasions she persuaded the OP/NIIT to get back her admission fees, but ultimately the OP has not refunded the money who earlier did not agree to acquaint her with the system without registration and in absence of ID and in absence of ID and it is absolutely false and the complainant also strongly denied the version of the OP that the course contents was duly explained over the internet as stated by the OP. In its contention the complainant alleged that it is now very much clear that very much knowing the NIIT being the OP2 is snatching money with dishonest way and doing such unfair trade practice.
On the other side, in its submission, the OP2 admitted that the complainant took admission in the court namely post graduate certificate in Business Analytics (PGCBA) on 09-06-2014 at their Kakurgachi Centre and filled the admission form duly signed by the complainant. Fact remains, the batch of the student/complainant programme commenced on 14-06-2014 and the same day study materials was provided to the students/complainant. in its contention the OP/NIIT argued that complainant was bound by the terms and conditions of the student Handbook as applicable to them and the complainant also gave an undertaking to abide by the same and by signing the declaration on 09-06-2014 which was envisaged in the application form dated 09-06-2014 as duly filled in and signed by the student. But after attending the classes, the complainant approached the Centre Head of OP/Institute and sought for refund of the fee which is not refundable as per student Handbook and the complainant is not entitled for refund of the fee after having attended the classes and also on receiving the study materials.
Now, the question is whether the present complaint is maintainable against the present OPs. In this regard, we have gathered that no doubt complainant paid the first instalment for her admission and truth is that complainant joined the course and also have been given study materials. So, under this circumstances, it is to be looked into whether the complainant is a consumer of OP or not.
It is an order of the Hon.ble National Commission that education is not a commodity and educational Institution are not service provider and truth is that in this case most legal question is whether educational institution is service provider or whether educational institution are service provider or not and further question whether admission fees shall be treated for hiring service from the Institution? And in this regard we have relied upon the ruling reported in 2011(11) CSS 155 and also the ruling reported in SLP (Civil) 22532/12, it is ordered by Hon.ble Supreme Court wherefrom we have gathered that educational institution is not a commodity and education is not providing service and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP and in this regard the judgment passed 2014 II ICC 940 by NC, it is found that NC has also come to a conclusion that educational institution are not counted as service provider and at the same time considering both the judgments including the present fact and circumstances, we are convinced to hold that present OPs are educational institution but they are not the service provider and in the regard there cannot be a question of deficiency of service in view of the above finding and the provision of C.P. Act, 1986 is not tenable because education is not a commodity for which complainants are not consumers and in view of the above finding and also relying upon the above ruling as referred we are inclined to hold that such a complaint cannot be entertained by this Forum under C.P. Act as complainant is not consumer under the OP.
Accordingly, the complaint fails.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs but without any cost.
