IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 28th day of April 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No. 225/2022 (Filed on 26.10.2022)
Complainant : Febin Mathew, S/o Babu
Thalachirackal House
Manarcaudu P.O
Kottayam
(By Adv.Rajeev P Nair)
Vs
Opposite parties :1. The Principal
Vague Institute of Arts and Design
Previously known as Vogue Institute
of Fashion Technology.
Anand Towers, Opp to PF office,
Rajeram Mohan Roy Road,
Richmond Circle, Bangalore-560027.
2. Mrs.Champa
Chief Admission Officer
Vogue Institute of Arts and Design
Anand Towers, Opp to PF office,
Rajeram Mohan Roy Road,
Richmond Circle, Bangalore-560027.
O R D E R
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
The Complaint is filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The complainant’s case is that: - In the first week of May 2022, the complainant submitted an application for the course of B.Des (communication and media designing) to the opposite parties as a representative of the opposite parties canvassed him for the course. At that time the complainant was awaiting admission in Jain University Karnataka for the same course. This was informed to the opposite parties. On 23rd May 2022 the 2nd opposite party demanded partial payment of advance amount and accordingly the compliant paid an amount Rs.20,000/- on the same date and a balance amount of Rs.30,000/- was paid on 25.05.2022. Only after receiving the same payment the opposite parties sent a formal mail on 26.05.2022 to the complainant informing about this admission and demanding the advance amount. At the time of payment the opposite parties did not inform that the said amount was non refundable. While so the complainant secured admission in Jain University which he had applied first and hence he requested the opposite parties to refund the advance amount. But even after repeated demands the opposite parties denied the refund stating that the amount paid as advance could not be refunded. Therefore the complainant caused a lawyers notice to the opposite parties on 12.07.2022 demanding the money back. The complainant is entitled to receive the refund of the advance amount. The issuance of the formal mail requesting the advance amount only after receiving the same and denying the refund amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties which is to be compensated. As the complainant belong to middle class family the act of the opposite parties has caused serious mental agony and hardships to the complainant and hence the case.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared but no version was filed so the opposite parties were set exparte. The complainant adduced evidence vide affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exts.A1 to A8.
On the basis of pleading and evidence on records. The issue to be answered are
- Whether the complaint is maintainable before this commission.
- Whether there is unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and if so what are the reliefs to be granted.
While answering the issue no.1 we are inclined to refer the land mark judgement of the Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C in 2022 in Principal, L.D.R.P Institute of Technology and Research Vs. Apoorv Sharma in which the Hon’ble Apex Commission has observed that educational matters do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and therefore education institute would also not for within the purview of it. The fact of the case cited is similar to the case on hand. In the above cited case the Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C has relied on the decision of a larger bench of three members of the Hon’ble Commission in the case of Manu Solanki and others Vs Vinayak Mission University and other connected cases.1 (2020) CPJ 2010 were in the larger bench has held that educational matters do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Therefore the complaint is not maintainable. In the land mark judgment it was decided categorically that educational matters do not come under the definition of service except coaching centres. As the facts and circumstances of the above case is squarely applicable in the case on hand, though it is filed under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 educational matters are specifically excluded in the definition of service by the apex Commission’s decision (supra). This commission have no jurisdiction to dispose the complaint on merits.
Hence the complaint is dismissed with the liberty given to the complainant to file the case before appropriate authority.
As on issue no.1 it is found that the complaint is not maintainable the other issue need not to be considered.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of April, 2023.
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member sd/-
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President sd/-
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of the complainant
A1 - Copy of statement of account dated 22.08.2022 issued by State Bank of India, Manarcaud.
A2- Copy of email letter from Vogue Institute of Fashion Technology dated 26.05.2022.
A3- Copy of legal notice dated 12.07.2022.
A4- Postal receipts.
A5- Copy of legal notice dated 27.08.2022.
A6- Copy of advertisement of Vogue Institute of Fashion Technology.
A7- Copy of advertisement of Vogue Institute of Fashion Technology.
A8- Copy of letter from University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Marg, New Delhi-110002, dated 02.08.2022.
Exhibits marked from the side of the opposite parties
Nil
By order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
