Present:-

          For the appellants                        :  Sh. Sudesh Shahi, Advocate

          For  respondent No.1                   :  None.

          For respondents No.2 to 4  :  Ex-parte

JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH,  PRESIDENT :

                   This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ opposite parties No.1 and 3 against the order dated 27.02.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar  (in short “ District Forum”), vide which the complaint filed by Rashmi Gupta, respondent No.1/complainant,  under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short “ the Act”) was allowed and opposite parties No.1 to 3  were directed to send the School Leaving Certificate and Marks Sheet of 10+1 examination, if the same was in their custody, at the address of the complainant through registered post with acknowledgement due and to pay Rs.10,000/-, as compensation for the harassment caused to her; and Rs.2,000/-, as costs of filing of the complaint.

2.                The complainant alleged, in her complaint, that she was a student of 10+2 of Non Medical Stream in the school of opposite parties No. 1 to 3, where her mother was working as lecturer. Being the daughter of the school teacher, fee concession was being given to her and she had been paying Rs.1,200/- per month as fee. However, no such fee was collected from her with effect from  August 2011, though the same was tendered to opposite parties No. 1 to 3. After completion of Session 2009-10, her mother submitted her resignation but those opposite parties requested her to continue to provide service till the appointment of new teacher and that they would appoint such a teacher within 2 months. It was in view of that request of opposite parties No. 1 to 3 that her mother had withdrawn her resignation. Her mother found that no steps were being taken to appoint new teacher and she again submitted her resignation, which irritated these opposite parties and they withheld her salary for some period. Thereafter, they started keeping the grudge against her (complainant). The matter was compromised with her mother on the intervention of opposite party No.5 and they agreed to hand over the school leaving certificate to her. After that, neither she was given the home work nor the same was checked and she entertained the apprehension that she might be marked absent from the school. The roll number was not issued nor she was allowed to appear in the examination; which totally ruined/spoiled her life and on that account and for the same she is entitled  to Rs.4 lakhs as damages. There was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, as a result of which she suffered harassment, pain and mental agony and for the same, she is entitled to Rs.70,000/- as damages.  She claimed the interest on those amounts at the rate of 12% per annum and Rs.10,000/- as costs of complaint.

3.                Opposite parties No. 1 to 3 contested the complaint and filed detailed joint written reply. In the written reply they admitted that the complainant was a student in their school and was paying Rs.1,200/- per month  as school fee by virtue of the fee concession, as her mother was a teacher in the school. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, they pleaded that the mother of the complainant wilfully absented herself from the school without any prior intimation and she never submitted any such resignation. About her absence, a letter was written to her to explain her position as her absence was affecting the future of the students. In reply to that letter, it was stated by her mother that she was not coming to the school due to her own sweet will. Her services were terminated with effect from 27.08.2011. The monthly fee of the complainant was not deposited and in case, she wanted to continue her studies, the deposit of that monthly fee was must. However, she was being adjusted and was permitted to attend the classes without charging the fee. She stopped coming to the school from 04.09.2011 and information to that effect was sent to her mother, vide letter dated 13.09.2011 and reminder dated 20.09.2011. In reply to that letter/reminder, application dated 19.09.2011 was received on 22.09.2011, in which it was mentioned that the complainant was not feeling well and had some stomach problem. Then they approached the mother of the complainant and told that her absence would lead to shortage of attendance, as the admission form was to be sent to CBSE Board. Inspite of that, her mother did not care to send her to the school. However, they sent the examination form of the complainant to the said Board without her counter signature. Neither the complainant nor her parents turned up to countersign that form and even the examination fee was not deposited. The mother of the complainant had been insulting them and the matter was taken up with the S.D.M, SHO of the Police and the D.E.O.  The school leaving certificate had been issued and her mother was asked to collect the same from the school, but she never turned up. There was no such deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. The complainant is not a consumer and present complaint has been filed at the instance of her mother; whose services had been terminated. They have been unnecessarily dragged into unwanted litigation, for which they are entitled to special costs to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. They prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Both the sides produced the evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties No. 1 and 3, whereas no one has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1/complainant and other opposite parties, who were impleaded as respondents No. 2 to 4, did not appear before this Commission in spite of their service and they were proceeded against ex parte.

6.                According to the complainant herself, opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are running a school; which is an educational institute. The following short order was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2012(3) CPC 615; P.T.Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors.:-

       “1. In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010(11) SCC 159= 2010(2) CPC 696 S.C. wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational Institutions 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.”

7.                In view of that judgment, it is to be held that the appellants/opposite parties are not service providers and, as such, the complaint under the Act was not maintainable against them.

8.                Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

9.                The sum of Rs.6,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellants/opposite parties No.1 and 3 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties.

10.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.