Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/435/2016

Rakesh Kapil - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pi Scholastics, Physics coaching - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj

23 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/435/2016
Date of Institution	:	14/06/2016
Date of Decision	:	23/03/2017

 

 

Rakesh Kapil r/o H.No.635, Milk Colony Dhanas, Chandigarh father and natural guardian of Deeksha Kapil.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

Pi Scholastics, Physics Simplified, SCO 210-211 (Basement), Below Amit Book Depot, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director Er. Savin Sindhu.

……Opposite Party

CORAM	:	S.S. PANESAR	PRESIDENT
		MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
		SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for complainant
	:	OP ex-parte

 

Per S.S. Panesar, President

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on 11.2.2016, daughter of the complainant took admission in coaching classes for +1 Physics of OP and deposited Rs.10,000/- as first installment.  The course was to start on 1.4.2016. Thereafter the complainant’s daughter told him that she wanted to study all subjects under one roof and being girl cannot afford to move from one coaching centre to another for different subjects. Accordingly, the complainant alongwith his daughter approached the OP on 18.2.2016 and told Mr. Deepak that his daughter did not wish to take coaching and sought refund of Rs.10,000/-.  As advised, the complainant also gave written request on 24.2.2016 which was duly received by the OP. As per the complainant, no service had been availed from the OP as the course was to commence from 1.4.2016 and the request for refund was given on 18.2.2016 and the written request was received on 24.2.2016. The complainant patiently waited for the refund, but, the OP failed to do so despite service of legal notice. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OP did not appear despite due service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 9.2.2017.
3.         The complainant led evidence in support of his contentions. 
4.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant.  
5.         From perusal of the record it becomes evident that on 11.2.2016 the complainant’s daughter took admission in coaching classes for +1 Physics of the OP, which were to commence from 1.4.2016, and deposited Rs.10,000/- as first installment. Subsequently as the complainant’s daughter wanted to study all the subjects under one roof, therefore, he alongwith his daughter approached the OP on 18.2.2016 to inform that she does not wish to take the coaching classes and demanded refund of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant also gave a written request on 24.2.2016, which was duly received by the OP, but, with no success. The complainant has also filed a duly sworn affidavit in support of the allegations made in the complaint.
6.      The sole point to be determined by this Forum in this case has been as to whether ‘education’ falls within the ambit of ‘service’ or not or whether the parent/ward comes within the definition of ‘consumer’ in relation to OP educational institution?  Answer to this query is given in the negative.  This question arose before the Hon’ble Apex court in P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., in Civil Appeal No.22532 of 2012, decided on 9.8.2012 and Revision Petition No.270 of 2006 titled as Brilliant Classes Vs. Shri Ashbel Sam, decided on 29.1.2010 wherein it has been held that educational institutions are not service providers because education is not a commodity and educational institutions are not providing any kind of service. Since the complainant is not proved to be a ‘consumer’ and education is neither a commodity nor a ‘service’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, the case of the complainant that the OP is refusing to refund the amount deposited i.e. Rs.10,000/-, cannot be termed to be a ‘consumer dispute’.  As such, we hold that the District Consumer Fora is not the appropriate Forum for getting the refund of the fee paid to the OP institution. Rather it is the civil Court which is competent to entertain and decide such type of cases.
7.         In view of the above discussion, the instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
8.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
23/03/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[S.S. Panesar]
hg	Member	Member	President