1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against the Order dated 11.09.2019, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 397/2019. The State Commission dismissed the said appeal and upheld the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad Rural (‘District Forum’) order dated 30.05.2019 in CC No. 58/2017.

2.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum and the State Commission.

3.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he is an agriculturist and enrolled his son Raghavbhai in the B.Sc. Agriculture program at Rai University, located in Saroda village, Taluka Dholka, District Ahmedabad. Upon admission, the complainant paid Rs. 10,000 on 04.08.2012 towards registration and Rs. 5,000 as development charges (total Rs.15,000) for the first semester. On 29.08.2016 he paid Rs.20,000 towards program fees and Rs.5,000 towards academy fees (total Rs.25,000). Raghavbhai started his studies and attended 30 days of the first semester. However, on 24.10.2016, the complainant came across a newspaper advertisement issued by the Office of the Higher Education Commissioner stating that certain educational programs, including the one in which his son was enrolled, were not sanctioned by the State Government under the Private University Act, 2009. The University was alleged to be running study programs that were not authorized by the government, violating Section 4 of the Act.  Based on this information, the complainant sought a refund of the fees paid and compensation for physical, mental, and economic harassment by filing a complaint before the District Forum.

4.      Upon receiving notice of the complaint, the Petitioner/OP-Rai University filed a reply stating that the complainant is not covered under the definition of "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. The OP produced a Notification dated 21.01.2016, showing that 300 seats were available for the B.Sc. Agriculture program, of which 221 students were admitted in the academic year 2016-17. Out of these, 137 students appeared for Semester-1 and Semester-2 exams, while 74 students remained absent. The complainant did not submit any cancellation letter requesting a refund of fees. The son of the complainant had obtained admission after receiving complete information about the program from the university. The receipt for the payment of fees clearly mentioned that the fee was "non-refundable." Hence, the respondent argued that the fee deposited could not be returned to the complainant.  The OP contended that there was no deficiency in service or negligence on their part and requested the complaint be dismissed.

5.      The learned District Commission vide Order dated 30.05.2019 partly allowed the complaint against OP as under:-

“ORDER

(1) The complaint of the complainant is hereby partially allowed.

(2) The respondent is ordered to pay the fees paid for the course of B.Sc. Agriculture of Rs.40,000/- at the interest of 8% from the date of the application to the complainant.

(3) It is ordered to pay the amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards the mental torture and agony by the respondent.

4) It is ordered to pay the amount of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant towards the litigation expenses by the respondent.

(5) The implementation of the aforementioned order shall be done by the respondent from the date of the said order within days - 30.

(6) The copy of the said order shall be supplied to the parties without costs.”                     (Extracted from translated copy)

6.  Being aggrieved by the District Forum order, the OP-Rai University filed Appeal No.397/2019 and the State Commission vide Order dated 11.09.2019, dismissed the Appeal with following observations:-

(1) The Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.

(2) The judgment and order of the Learned Forum is confirmed and continued.

(3) No order is given as to costs.

(4) The Registry is hereby directed that, whatever amount is deposited by the appellant for the process of Appeal, after making verification and scrutiny of the said amount, and if such amount is deposited, then the same shall be returned to the appellant along with the interest by making the cheque of the name of the account of the appellant by account payee cheque and therefore the same shall be given to the Advocate of the appellant and the receipt of acknowledgement of the said cheque shall be obtained from the appellant.”                      (Extracted from translated copy)

7.      Being dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 11.09.2019 the OP filed the present Revision Petition.

8.      The learned counsel for Petitioner/OP reiterated the facts of the case and argued that ‘Education’ is not a commodity. Educational institutions, including universities, do not render any ‘service’ while providing education and collecting fees. He asserted that not only are the impugned orders are liable to be set aside, but also the complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable and should be dismissed. He relied on the following judgements in support of this argument:

1. Anupama College of Engineering vs. Gulshan Kumar and Ors., MANU/SCOR/83254/2017;
2. Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj University vs. Manisha Pandey and Ors., MANU/UP/5315/2018;
3. Manu Solanki & Ors. v. Vinayaka Mission University; 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 7.
4. Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj University Kanpur vs. Vinay Singh Chauhan and Anr., Writ Petition No.61299 of 2009, decided on 20.11.2018 by High Court of Allahabad.

9.      In his arguments, learned counsel for Complainant reiterated the facts of the case and emphasized that the State Commission and the District Forum have unanimously held that Petitioner/OP was guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The jurisdictional power of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act, 1986 can only be invoked in cases of jurisdictional error, and not to re-examine the facts of the case. They are entitled to all the reliefs granted by the District Forum. He argued in favour of the concurrent findings of the Fora below. He sought that the Revision Petition be dismissed with costs. He has also relied upon the following judgments:

i. Maharshi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur, Civil Appeal No.6807 of 2008, decided on 19.07.2020 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court;

ii.  Kishore Lal vs. Chairman, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Appeal (Civil) No.4965 of 2000, decided on 08.05.2007 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court;

iii. M/s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and Anr., Civil Appeal No.7543 of 2004, decided on 15.09.2011 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

10.      I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both the parties.

11.      The main issue to be determined is whether educational institutions or services provided by them fall under the ambit of the Act? And, if so, what is the compensation that is liable to be paid to the complainant?

12.      Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Bihar School Examination Board vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, reported in IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC), has clarified this issue. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the Bihar School Examination Board does not offer “service” to any candidate, nor does any student hire or avail of any “service” from the Board for a consideration. Paragraph No. 10 of the said judgement is reproduced below:

“10. The Board is a statutory authority established under the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952. The function of the Board is to conduct school examinations. This statutory function involves holding periodical examinations, evaluating the answer scripts, declaring the results and issuing certificates. The process of holding examinations, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function. It is not possible to divide this function as partly statutory and partly administrative. When the Examination Board conducts an examination in discharge of its statutory function, it does not offer its “services” to any candidate. Nor does a student who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, hires or avails of any service from the Board for a consideration. On the other hand, a candidate who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, is a person who has undergone a course of study and who requests the Board to test him as to whether he has imbibed sufficient knowledge to be fit to be declared as having competence vis-vis other examinees. The process is not therefore availment of a service by a student, but participation in a general examination conducted by the Board to ascertain whether he is eligible and fit to be considered as having successfully completed the secondary education course. The examination fee paid by the student is not the consideration for availment of any service, but the charge paid for the privilege of participation in the examination.”

13.      A ‘Larger Bench’ of this Commission in Manu Solanki and Ors vs. Vinayaka Mission University and other connected cases reported in I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC) had held that educational matters do not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Consequently, complaints filed by in such matters are deemed not maintainable. This precedent aligns with the position that educational institutions and the services they provide are not considered "services" under the Consumer Protection Act.

14.      As a result, consumer fora do not have jurisdiction over disputes pertaining to educational matters, thereby reinforcing the conclusion that the present complaints are not maintainable under the Act. Based on the discussion above, I am of the considered view that the orders passed by the fora below suffer from material illegality and are erroneous. Therefore, the order passed by the learned District Forum dated 30.05.2019 in CC No. 58/2017 and the order passed by the learned State Commission dated 11.09.2019 in Appeal No.397/ 2019 are set aside. Consequently, the Revision Petition No.2659 of 2019 is allowed.

15.    Needless to say, the Complainant has right to approach appropriate legal fora to seek relief in respect of the grievances against the opposite parties. They may also seek benefit of the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in doing so.

16.    Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.

17.    All other pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.