1.       Heard learned amicus curiae for the revisionist and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1/ University. The respondent no. 2 was issued notice and since they have not put in appearance, the matter has proceeded ex parte against them.

2.       The dispute lies in a very short compass. The complaint was filed before the District Commission alleging deficiency against the respondent University and the said complaint was partly allowed by awarding refund of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant from the date of issuance of no objection certificate together with interest @ 6% p.a. within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. A sum of Rs.25,000/- was awarded as lump sum on account of  mental agony and litigation cost etc.

3.       This order of the District Commission dated 16.04.2013 was subjected to an appeal by the complainant contending that the compensation awarded by the District Commission was on the lower side and therefore the entire claim as made in the complaint should be allowed. The State Commission however, proceeded to record a finding in paragraph 8 of it’s order that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as the State Commission in several orders, the dispute was not amenable and entertainable by the consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was also observed that the complainant would be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum and could invoke the provisions of the limitation act for claiming any such relief before the competent forum.

4.       In essence the appeal was practically allowed in favour of the University but at the same time the amount directed to be refunded was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

5.       In view of the aforesaid finding recorded by the State Commission, the complainant feeling aggrieved has filed this revision petition contending that the entire claim ought to have been allowed and could not have been dismissed on the issue of maintainability of the complaint.

6.       The order passed by  a three Member Bench of this Commission in the case of Manu Solanki and Others Vs. Vinayak Mission University and other connected cases, 1(2020) CPJ 210 (NC)  categorically holds that such issues relating to educational institutions are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the consumer forum. The conclusion therefore drawn by the State Commission in paragraph 8 of the impugned order finds support by a three Member Bench of this Commission in Manu Solanki (Supra) as referred to hereinabove.

7.       The finding of the State Commission therefore is perfectly in consonance with law. No case of any irregularity or illegality is made out so as to warrant interference in this revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed.