Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/870

GGSIU - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRITISH SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jan 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision: 06.01.2016

First Appeal No. 870/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 28.07.2012 passed in complaint case No. 533/2008 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North) Tis Hazari, Delhi)

In the matter of:

The Registrar

Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University

Sector-16-C, Dwarka

Delhi-110006                                                  Appellant

 

Versus

 

Ms. Pritish Sharma

D/o Sh. Suresh Sharma

R/o AG-155, Shalimar Bagh

New Delhi-110088                                                     Respondent

 

CORAM

 

JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL                 -                       President

SALMA NOOR                                    -                       Member

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

SALMA NOOR – MEMBER

 

1.      By this appeal, appellant has impugned the order dt. 28.07.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum (North) Tis Hazari, Delhi. Vide impugned order the appellant herein was directed to refund to the complainant/respondent herein an amount of Rs. 38,000/- with simple interest @ 6% p.a. on the amount deposited by him till the date of its payment. Ld. District Forum also directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 2000/- as cost.
2.      Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had applied for admission in B.Ed. Course for the year 2007-2008 of OP University. Since she had appeared in B.A. (English) Hons. Examination of Delhi University, result of which was awaited, she was given provisional admission to B.Ed. course of the university. On the ground of provisional admission the complainant deposited Rs. 38,000/- as fee with OP University on 19.06.2007. It is alleged by the complainant that the eligibility of the appellant taking admission of the B.Ed. Course was that the complainant should secure 50% marks in her graduation. The graduation result of the complainant was declared in August 2007 and she secured only 49% marks in that. According to the eligibility condition she was not eligible for admission in B.Ed. Course of the OP/appellant University. Therefore, she applied for refund of the fee but OP/appellant decided not to refund the fee. Aggrieved by the refusal of the OP/appellant for not refunding the fee complainant/respondent had filed the complaint before the District Forum for refund of the fee of Rs. 38,000/- alongwith costs.
3.      OP/appellant contested the case. It was not disputed by the OP/appellant that the complainant was given provisional admission to B.Ed. Course of the OP/appellant University on 18.06.2007 and deposited a sum of Rs. 38,000/- as fee with the OP. It was also not disputed that the complainant in her graduation secured 49% marks, therefore, she was not eligible for admission in B.Ed. Course in the OP/appellant University. Moreover, it is also contested by the OP/appellant that the complainant has given an affidavit to the effect that if she will not secure 49% marks in the graduation her admission to B.Ed. course of OP/appellant University would automatically get cancel and full fee deposited by him would be forfeited. It is further alleged that the complainant has since secured 49% marks in the graduation, her fee is automatically stood forfeited, therefore, she is not entitled to claim the same.
4.      Both the parties had led their evidences. After going through the pleadings and the evidences filed by the parties, Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant and passed the following order:

“In view of the legal position, we are of the view that OP is liable to refund the amount of Rs. 38,000/- deposited by the complainant. Accordingly, we direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs. 38,000/-, the fee deposited by the complainant, with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit of fee till the payment is made to the complainant. The OP shall also pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- to the complainant as costs. The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of this order.”

 

5.      Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. District Forum the OP/appellant filed the appeal before us.
6.      We have heard counsels for the parties and perused the record.
7.      It is not necessary to go into merits of the case because present is a case of refund of the fee and there are latest judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it has been held that the educational institutions i.e. Universities/Board are not providing any kind of service rather they perform the statutory duties.
8.      The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (2) CPC 696 SC.; Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha 2010 (1) CLT 255 (SC) as well as P.T.Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC) has held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions imparting education are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
9.      The Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1684/2009 titled as Registrar Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University V/s Tanvi decided on 29.01.2015 also held that a student is not a ‘consumer’. Relying upon the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble National Commission has also held that the educational institutions are not providing any kind of service. Therefore, in matter of admission, fee etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Fora under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
10.  In view of the above discussions, present appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.07.2012 passed in complaint case No. 533/2008 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North) Tis Hazari, Delhi is set aside. There is no order as to costs.
11.  The complainant shall be at liberty to seek her grievances before the appropriate Forum/Civil Court in accordance with law. The complainant can seek help for condonation of delay in accordance with law laid down in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute 1995 (3) SCC 583.
12.  Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
13.  FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

(JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL)

3270399981102.  

 

(SALMA NOOR)​

MEMBER