MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “the Act”) is to the order dated 02.05.2013 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal  No. 1269 of 2017. By the impugned order, the State  Commission has concurred with the finding of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum , Bareilly  (in short “the District Forum”) and dismissed the Appeal. The District Forum allowed the Complaint in part and directed the University to refund the admission fee of ₹30,000/- with compensation of ₹5,000/- within one month, failing which, the amount shall attract interest @ 9% p.a.

2.       The facts as set out in the Complaint are, that the Complainant passed the entrance exam of UPMACT in the year 2002 and obtained rank 205 and he received the information through internet that counselling will be held on 06.07.2002 at Allahabad, for which the complainant had to deposit ₹8,000/- and the same was deposited and Complainant appeared for counselling on 06.07.2002. Thereafter, the Complainant deposited ₹30,000/- vide  Bank Draft No. 730094 of the State Bank of India, Banaras dated 19.07.2002 with the Opposite Party No. 1. It is pleaded that the Complainant received information through internet about the re-counselling and he appeared for the same on 31.07.2002, wherein the Complainant was given admission in MCA course in Ajay Kumar Garg Engineering College, Ghaziabad and the Complainant was required to deposit Fee by 05.08.2002. After completing all the formalities, Complainant took admission in Ajay Kumar Garg Engineering College, Ghaziabad. Thereafter, the Complainant wrote several letters on 08.08.2002, 23.11.2002, 04.08.2003, 22.11.2003 and 01.01.2004  to the Opposite Parties seeking refund or transfer of the amount of ₹30,000/- paid to the Opposite Parties. But, neither transfer was made to Ajay Kumar Garg Engineering College, Ghaziabad nor the amount was refunded. Vexed with the attitude of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant approached the District Forum seeking refund of ₹30,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 30.07.2002, compensation of ₹60,000/- and ₹2,000/- as cost.

3.       The University filed their Written Version stating that the Complainant had no right to appear in re-scheduling after taking admission in the University and further that he had no right to take admission in Ajay Kumar Garg Engineering College, Ghaziabad and therefore he is not entitled for refund of the fee, which he had deposited for admission.

4.       It was also raised in the Written Version that the fora has no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint as issue is regarding refund of fees, which is not a Consumer dispute.

5.       The District Forum allowed the Complaint in part with the aforenoted directions. 

6.       Aggrieved by the said order, the University preferred an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission relied on the judgement of Bihar School Examination Board vs Suresh Prasad Sinha and differentiated between the statutory functioning and administrative functioning and held as follows:

“We arrive at this finding from the statutory function defined in regard to examination by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that all the cases besides the above functions for any course such as admission, admission fee and debarring from examination are covered by the Administrative  Function of the above Statutory Authorities and if any dispute arises in regard to them between the student/ candidate and Statutory Authority/ Educational Institute, then admission fee deposited by such candidate/ student for admission being a consideration, he happens to be a consumer, attained education is service and Education Institution for providing service for admission is a Service Provider and while considering any defect therein as a deficiency in service, above Consumer Forum shall have the jurisdiction.

In the light of the above ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on the basis of the facts mentioned in the appeal by the Appellant and contentions raised by the Respondents, we make the following analysis in regard to the above case:-

It has been admitted by the Respondent in the appeal that complainant as per the rules was selected for MCA Course after counselling in the appellant College and he after depositing the amount of Rs.30,000/- for admission as admission fee got done his registration.

In our opinion, complainant has since deposited the admission fee (consideration) for MCA Course, he has become the ‘Consumer” of the Respondent/ Appellant in the light of above ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. ”

7.       This Commission in Rabindra Bharti University Vs. Jayati  oy Chowshury & Ors., Revision Petition No. 263 to 266 of 2017 dated 07.11.2017, placed reliance on the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy &  Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust &  Ors., 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC), Prof. K. K. Ramachandran Vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 4133 of 2013 decided on 29.04.2013 Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159, wherein it was held that Education is not a Commodity and a student is not a ‘Consumer’. The Hon’ble Apex Court in P.T. Koshy(Supra) has held as follows:

"In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159, 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.

In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition. Thus, the Special Leave petition is dismissed."

          No distinction was made between Administrative and Statutory functions in the subsequent judgments.

8.       Having regard to the aforentoed principle, laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view, that Education is not a Commodity and cannot be defined as ‘Service’, as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) or (o) of the Act and hence this Revision Petition is allowed and the order of both the fora below is set aside and the Complaint is dismissed accordingly. No costs.