Dated 16.05.2024

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

1. Present appeal has been filed on behalf of appellant/opposite party Budhist Mission Dental College for setting aside the judgment and order dated 27.07.2012 passed by Ld. District Consumer Forum, Saran at Chapra in Complaint case no. 09 of 2009 whereby and whereunder appellants have been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- with interest @12% p.a from the date of deposit of the amount i.e 02.02.1999 till final payment. Appellants have been further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to each of the complainant for physical and mental harassment. Appellants have been further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- each to complainant no. 2 and 3 for academic loss. Appellants have been also directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- as cost of litigation within 3 months from the date of order.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case is that complainant no. 1 Ramnath Prasad and opposite party no. 1 Sri Ram Avtar Vastsayan were friends and Ram Avtar Vatsayan used to visit house of Ramnath Prasad during family function.
3. Ram Avtar Vatsayan told Ram Nath Prasad that he is Secretary of Buddist Mission Dental College which is recognized by Magadh University and Dental Council of India and is being controlled and managed by Vishwa Budh Prishad, Patna.
4. Ram Avtar Vatsayan advised Ramnath Prasad to get his daughter and Bhagini admitted in said institution for which he will have to pay fees of Rs. 3,01,000/- but Ram Nath Prasad showed his inability to pay said fee at one time but was ready to pay fees in installments. Jagriti Rani (complainant no. 2) and Smidha Verma (complainant no. 3) got admitted on 09.07.1998 and 03.11.1998 on making payment of fees of Rs. 55,000/- and Rs. 75,000/- and remaining amount was to be paid in installments.
5. After admission Jagriti Rani and Smidha Verma started attending their classes but suddenly college was closed on 02.11.1999 as college was not recognized. On 03.02.2001 it was made known  that college has been closed and the amount will be refunded, and on 18.02.2004 complainant submitted receipt of admission and payment of fees for its refund.
6. Complainant went to the house of Ram Avtar Vatsayan on 20.04.2004 but refund of amount was denied thereafter complainant filed consumer complaint case for refund of amount with interest as well as compensation of physical and mental harassment and cost of litigation on 21.02.2009.
7. Notices were issued to opposite parties and thereafter paper publication was also made but opposite parties did not appear and case proceeded ex-parte against them.
8. Complainant in support of his claim adduced evidence on affidavit of 3 witnesses and submitted documentary evidence which were marked as exhibits by the District Consumer Forum.
9. District Consumer Forum after hearing the counsel for the complainant and considering the evidences placed on record held that opposite parties duped complainants by making publication of false advertisement for taking admission in Dental Course although institute was neither recognized by University nor Dental Council of India and held opposite parties guilty of deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice and accordingly, ordered to refund the amount with interest as well as granted compensation and cost of litigation, aggrieved by which present appeal has been filed on behalf of opposite parties.
10. Heard counsel for appellant as well as respondent.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the judgment and order dated 13.02.2009 passed by the Apex Court in case of Budhist Mission Dental College and Hospital Vs. Bhupesh Khurana and Ors. since reported in 2009 (4) SCC 473 in which Hon’ble Apex Court has held that imparting education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of service as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by educational institutions. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. The complainants had hired, the services of the respondents for consideration so they are consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. 
12. The issue whether the educational institution imparting education are amenable to jurisdiction of Consumer Commission or not came up for consideration before the Apex Court in case of PA Inamdar & Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2005 (6) SCC 537, Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha 2009 (8) SCC 483, Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159, PT Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. 2012 (3) CPC 615 and Anupama College of Engineering Vs. Gulshan Kumar & Anr. in which it has been held that educational institution are not providing any kind of service and imparting education is not rendering service as such these matters can not be subject matters under the Consumer Protection Act.
13. A larger bench of National Commission considered several judgments passed by Apex Court on this issue in case of Manu Solanki Vs. Vinayak Mission University 2020(I) CPJ 210 (NC) which included the judgment and order relied upon by the District Consumer Forum while passing the impugned order and the National Commission after detailed consideration has held as following.

38. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in Revision Petition Nos. 2955 to 2963 of 2018 submitted that once the University is declared as 'Deemed University' all functions and activities governed by the University Grants Commission Act (UGC Act), fall within the definition of 'Authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and would be amenable only to the jurisdiction of the High Court. It is contended that even if the Education Institutions do not have a proper affiliation, Consumer Fora do not have jurisdiction to entertain the same. In our view even if an Institution imparting education does not have a proper affiliation in imparting education, it is not rendering any service and, therefore, will be out of the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .

39. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Revision Petition No. 222 of 2015 vehemently contended that the Complainant had taken admission in B. Ed. course of the Opposite Party on the assurance that the said college was recognized by National Council of Technical Education (NCTE) and affiliated with the Opposite Party No. 2, Uttrakhand Technical University, who subsequently came to know that the Institute was not recognized by NCTE and therefore sought for refund of the fees. Whether such an unfair trade practice post admission would fall within the ambit of the Act needs to be seen. As the Institution is imparting education though it has been not recognized by the National Council of Technical Education, it would not make any difference because it will be covered under the education. Thus, the said Institute would not be rendering any service as defined in the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .

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 .

52. The Reference is accordingly answered.

53. Consequently, Consumer Complaint Nos. 261 and 267 of 2012 are dismissed as not maintainable. Revision Petition No. 462 of 2013 is directed to be placed before the Appropriate Bench for deciding it on merits. Revision Petition Nos. 2047 of 2013, 3159 of 2014, 1960 of 2016, 721 & 722 of 2018, 2955 to 2963 of 2018, 3383 & 3384 of 2018 and 1366 of 2019 are allowed and the Complaints filed by the Complainants/Respondents herein are dismissed. Further, Revision Petition Nos. 222 of 2015, 1731 to 1733 of 2017 and 82 of 2017 are dismissed as the Complaints are not maintainable. Finally, Consumer Complaint No. 2238 of 2018 is dismissed as not maintainable.

14. Judgment and order passed in Manu Solanki Vs Vinayak Mission University (Supra) has subsequently been followed by National Commission in case L.B.S Group of Education Institute Vs Arjun Singh 2021 (1) CPJ (NC) 151 and in case of Rai Technology University Vs. Prakurthi N.V. 2023(1) CPJ (NC) 154 dismissing the similar complaint cases as not maintainable.
15. In view of the judgment and order passed by the National Commission as referred above, the impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum, is not sustainable and is accordingly, set aside.
16. Appeal is allowed and complaint case being complaint case no. 09 of 2009 filed before the District Consumer Forum, Saran at Chapra is dismissed as not maintainable.
17. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Commission, Saran at Chapra by E-mail forthwith and order to be uploaded on the CONFONET.
18.    Let the file be consigned in the record room along with copy of this order.

 ( Ram Prawesh Das)                                     (Raj Kumar Pandey)                       (Sanjay Kumar,J)

       Member                                                         Member                                           President

Md. Fariduzzama