Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1095/2019

Saroj Kumar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Principal The New Public School - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

16 Nov 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/1095/2019
Date of Institution	:	03/12/2019
Date of Decision	:	16/11/2021

 

 

 

Saroj Kumar Singh, # 13, NGO Block, Commando-Complex, Sector-65, Mohali (Punjab).

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Principal, The New Public School, Sector 18-B, Chandigarh 160018.

… Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI RAJAN DEWAN	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Navdeep Singh Dhillon, Counsel for OP

 

Per Rajan Dewan, President

1.      Briefly stated, allegations in the consumer complaint are, complainant approached the OP school for admission of his daughter namely Ms.Shruti Raj Singh in +1. Averred since his daughter was to be admitted as a transfer case, he was told that when she passes 10^th class and seat falling vacant, she would get admission. He was told to give a signed cheque to show his interestedness and further the same can also be used as fee. The complainant in order to ensure that there is no hurdle in admission of his daughter, gave the signed cheque. Finally the complainant’s daughter got admission in the OP school on 27.7.2017.  However, the school charged fee for the months of April, May, June and till 26^th July also. Subsequently, due to personal reasons, as the complainant’s daughter wanted to study Arts, therefore, he got her admitted in some other school. When the complainant requested the OP school for refund of fee for the period before her admission, he was told that he would not get the same as his daughter had left the school. The complainant also sent registered letter dated 4.5.2018, but, to no avail.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint. 
2.     OP contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated this Commission lacks jurisdiction as complaint against educational institution/school is not maintainable.  It has been admitted that the complainant’s daughter was granted admission in the OP school for the session 2017-18 in class XI. Maintained, OP school charge tuition fee as per norms/procedure of Education Department, UT, Chandigarh and that all Government schools under Education Department, UT, Chandigarh charge fee for 12 months to class XI. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.     The complainant filed rejoinder and reiterated the averments made in the consumer complaint.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the OP and gone through the record of the case, including the written arguments.
6.     It has been argued by the complainant that the admission of his daughter was finalised in the OP school on 27.7.2017 only, but, the OP illegally charged fee from April till 26^th July, 2017 also. Subsequently his daughter took admission in some other school and when he sought refund of the illegally charged fee, OP refused which amounts to deficiency in service. 
7.     On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs argued that fee was charged as per norms/procedure of the Education Department, UT, Chandigarh and further that complaint against educational institution/school is not maintainable before this Commission.
8.     In view of above, the core question for determination before us is whether the present consumer complaint can be entertained by this Commission. The answer to the same is in the negative. 
9.     Recently, the Hon’ble National Commission in case Manu Solanki & Ors. Vs. Vinayaka Mission University, 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 7, while dealing with similar proposition and by referring to various earlier precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in detail, held that the institutions rendering education will not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In this regard, relevant paragraphs of the order of the Hon’ble National Commission are reproduced as under :-

“28. The brief facts of Anupama College of Engineering (Supra) are that the Complainant after getting admission in the Institute and depositing the fee, withdrew from the institution within one week that is prior to the last date of admission and sought for refund of the fees. The District Forum allowed the Complaint directing the institution to refund the amount of ₹5000/- with interest @7% per annum with effect from filing of the complaint till the date of realisation. The Educational Institution did not challenge the order of the District Forum and execution proceedings were filed vide EA/66/2010, which was challenged by the Institution by filing a Revision Petition before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the Revision observing that the substantive order was not challenged and has therefore attained finality. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, a Revision Petition was preferred by the College before the National Commission, which dismissed the Revision Petition on the ground of limitation and no other question was gone into. On an Appeal preferred by the College the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforenoted decision observed that there was a consistent opinion expressed by the court in Maharshi Dayanand University (supra), P.T. Koshy & Anr. (supra), and set aside the order of the Consumer Forum.

xxx           xxx           xxx

35.  We find force in the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Revision Petition No.3159 of 2014, who vehemently contended that post admission and having attended college for some period of time if the students leaves the college within his own volition and the seat falls vacant, which may or may not be filled by another candidate, the fee cannot be refundable as issue of is of ‘post admission’ and the student had left the seat ‘during the course of imparting education’. Any defect/ deficiency in conferring of a degree/ diploma, marks, certificates which may arise ‘during the course of imparting of Education’ does not fall within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, the aforenoted judgements squarely apply and students falling in this category are not ‘Consumers’.

xxx           xxx           xxx

40. There may be instances where there may be defect/deficiency of service in pre-admission stages by an educational Institution but as the educational Institutions are not rendering any service by imparting education, these instances will also not give any right for a person to approach the Consumer Fora under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”

 

While concluding, the Hon’ble National Commission, in para 51 held as under :-

“51. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport, etc. except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”

 

10.     The precedent of the Hon’ble National Commission clearly holds that educational institution is not a service provider and it imparts education and it would not amount to rendering any service under the Consumer Protection Act. Admittedly, the OP school is not a coaching institution, therefore, the ratio of law laid down in the aforecited precedent is fully applicable to the present case on all its fours and we are bound by the same.
11.     In view of the above authoritative precedent of the Hon’ble National Commission, complainant is not a consumer, therefore, the present consumer complaint before this Forum is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.  We order accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
16/11/2021	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rajan Dewan]
hg	Member	Member	President