3. In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 and Ex. C8 is the copy of application dated 06.08.2019, Ex. C2 is the copy of application written to Registrar, PAU, Ludhiana for refund of fee, Ex. C3 and Ex. C10 is the copy of receipt/challan dated 01.08.2019, Ex. C4 is the copy of receipt dated 02.08.2019 of counseling fee, Ex. C5 is the copy of medical certificate, Ex. C6 is the copy of biodata, Ex. C7 is the copy of selection notice, Ex. C9 is the copy of registration card, Ex. C11 is the copy of passbook of Shankha Bansal, Ex. C12 is the copy of legal notice, Ex. C13 and Ex. C14 are the postal receipts and closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A of Sh. Kapil Bansal, Assistant Registrar, PAU, Ludhiana and submitted documents Ex. RA is the copy of authority letter, Ex. R1 is the copy of selection notice, Ex. R2 is the copy of application of Shankha Bansal dated 06.08.2019, Ex. R3 is the copy of letter dated 26.08.2019 of The Dean, College & Basic Scs. & Humanities, PAU, Ludhiana written to The Registrar, PAU, Ludhiana, Ex. R4 is the copy of letter of Dean to the Registrar regarding information of vacant seats, Ex. R5, Ex. R7, Ex. R10, Ex. R11, Ex. R14 are the copies of applications of Shankha Bansal for refund of fee, Ex. R6 is the copy of list of selected candidates for 3rd counseling, Ex. R8, Ex. R9, Ex. R12, Ex. R13 are the copies of envelop, Ex. R15, Ex. R19 is the copy of letter of rejection of refund of fee, Ex. R16 is the copy of prospectus, Ex. R17, Ex. R18 are the copies of envelop sent to Shankha Bansal, Ex. R20 is the copy of email submitted to Shankha Bansal and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and affidavit produced on record by both the parties.
6. In the present complaint, the complainant has prayed for refund of entire fees i.e. Rs.95,820/- deposited with the opposite parties for admission of her daughter Shankha Bansal and also claimed interest, compensation and litigation expenses. Daughter of the complainant Ms. Shankha Bansal applied for admission in Bio-Chemistry course being run by Punjab Agriculture University and was having a rank of 1691 in the entrance test and accordingly, a selection letter dated 01.08.2019 Ex. R1 was issued, in pursuance of which she deposited the fee of Rs.95,820/-. However, she opted to surrender her seat and submitted an application dated 06.08.2019 Ex. C8 = Ex. R2 having receipt No.5282 dated 07.08.2019 and thereafter, she withdrew from admission process and applied for refund of her fees.
7. The counsel for the opposite parties has drawn attention of this Commission towards the refund policy as contained in the prospectus Ex. R16, relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:-
“The entire fee collected from the student, after deduction of the processing fee of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) shall be refunded and returned to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme provided the set consequently falling vacant has been filed by another candidate on the waiting list by the last date of admission.”
8. Perusal of the record shows that the complainant attended the third counseling on 30.09.2019 against a seat which fell vacant during the previous counseling. After the withdrawal of complainant from the admission process, no further counseling took place and the seat remained vacant which was not allotted to any student. In this contest, it would be pertinent to mention that there is no evidence on record that the seat vacated due to absence of Shankha Bansal, was filled in the same session by the opposite parties or that the fee qua the seat of the daughter of the complainant was realized from some other student. In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Commission, complainant cannot be held entitled for the refund of the fee as claimed in the complaint. In this regard, reference can be made to 2008 (3) C.P.J. 238 in Gujranwala Guru Nanak Institute of Management and Technology and another Vs Gitika Kapoor whereby the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputed Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh has held that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 2(1) (g)- Complaint alleging non-refund to fee when admission was surrendered - Failure on part of Complainant to attend classes without any information given to college - Seat occupied by complainant remained vacant for whole of academic session - Deficiency in service on the part of O.P. college not established- Refund of fees not entitled.”
9. Secondly, this complaint has been filed by Sh. Anurag Bansal, who is said to be the father of Shankha Bansal. Section 2(5) of the Consumer Protection Act defines the word “complainant”, which reads as under:-
“Section 2 (5) "complainant" means –
- a consumer; or
- any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being in force; or
- the Central Government or any State Government; or
- the Central Authority; or
- one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest; or
- in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or legal representative; or
- in case of a consumer being a minor, his parent or legal guardian.”
Further Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act defines the word “consumer”, which reads as under:-
“Consumer” means any person who:-
(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the consumer means a person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and include any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.”
Explanation. -For the purposes of this clause, -
(a) the expression "commercial purpose " does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;
(b) the expressions "buys any goods " and "hires or avails any services " includes offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing;”
Though the present complaint has been field by the complainant on behalf of his daughter Shankha Bansal but no power of attorney or authority letter given by Shankha Bansal in favour of the complainant has been placed on record. It is not disputed that Shankha Bansal is major. In the considered opinion of this Commission, at the most Shankha Bansal can claim her to be a consumer as she joined the college of the opposite parties and paid the fee. Since she has not formally authorized the complainant to file the complaint, it has to be held that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint on behalf of Shankha Bansal nor the complainant can be said to be a consumer in terms of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act.
11. Even otherwise, no consumer complaint is maintainable against the opposite parties being an educational institution. In this regard, a reference can be made to case titled as Manu Solanki Vs Vinayaka Mission University in 2020(1) CPJ 210, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi after considering multiple judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India broadly laid down the following principles:-
(a) in strict terms, coaching centers do not fall within the definition of ‘Educational Institutions’
(b) any defect or deficiency or unfair trade practice pertaining to a service provider like ‘Coaching Centers’ will fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora, and
(c ) 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 not fall within 1986 Consumer Protection Act.
The above cited view has been further reiterated in by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in LBS Group of Education Institute Vs Arjun Singh and others 2021(1) CPJ 151. As such, this Commission has no hesitation in holding that the complainant does not fall within purview of a consumer and therefore, the present complaint cannot be said to be maintainable as against the opposite parties.
12. As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
13. Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.
(Monika Bhagat) (Jaswinder Singh) (Sanjeev Batra) Member Member President
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:12.10.2023.
Gobind Ram.
