Haryana

StateCommission

A/478/2015

TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE - Complainant(s)

Versus

REENA AND ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

D.K.SINGAL

09 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      478 of 2015

Date of Institution:     25.05.2015

Date of Decision :      09.10.2015

 

1.      Chairman Technical Education Research Institute (Actual named as Technology Education & Research Institute) Dhand Road, District Kurukshetra.

 

2.      The Director, Technical Education Research Institute (Actual named as Technology Education & Research Institute) Dhand Road, District Kurukshetra

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

Versus

 

1.      Reena daughter of Rajbir Singh, r/o village Bhana, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      The State Board of Technical Education, Haryana, Sector 4, Panchkula.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party No.3

 

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                          

Present:     Mr. D.K. Singal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Balraj Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.1-complainant

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This appeal has been preferred by Chairman Technical Education Research Institute and another-opposite parties No.1 & 2 against the order dated April 08^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Kurukshetra, whereby complaint filed by Reena-complainant was accepted.  For facilitation, operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“11.   Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops No.1 & 2 to refund the admission fee and hostel fee to the complainant after making proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent within a period of 30 days, failing which complainant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual realization..”

  

2.      The complainant took admission in Technical Education Research Institute in B.Tech (ECE) on August 20^th, 2011.  She deposited Rs.38,700/- as admission fee and Rs.15,000/- hostel fee respectively with the appellants vide receipt No.5720 dated August 20^th, 2011. Thereafter, she took admission in U.I.E.T, University. She requested the appellants to refund the deposited fee but they refused to do so.

3.      The dispute is between the complainant and the Educational Institute. So, the issue before this Commission is as to whether or not the question of deficiency in service arises?

4.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihar School Examination Board versus Suresh Prasad Sinha, IV (2009) C.P.J. 34 (SC) held that the examination fee paid by student is not a consideration for availment of service, but charge paid for privilege of participation in examination. It has also been held that Education Boards & Universities are not ‘Service Provider’ and the complaints against them are not maintainable under the Act.

5.      In P.T. Koshy & Anr. Versus Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., 2012(3) C.P.C. 615 (S.C.) Hon’ble Apex Court after referring to judgment Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur 2010(11) SCC 159 held that education is not commodity and Educational institutions are not providing any service. Therefore, in the matter of admission, fee etcetera, there cannot be a question of deficiency in service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Fora under the Act.

6.      In view of the legal position enunciated above, the complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum.  

7.      Hence, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. However, the complainant shall have liberty to seek her grievances before the proper forum or Civil Court, as per law.  She can seek help for condonation of delay in accordance with law laid down in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute – 1995(3) SCC 583.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.19,075/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 09.10.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK