Delhi

StateCommission

A/830/2014

GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY - Complainant(s)

Versus

RITIKA SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jan 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Decision: 11.01.2017

 

 

First Appeal No.830/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 15.07.2014 passed in Complaint Case No.502/2012 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum-VII, New Delhi)

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

Guru Gobind Singh University (GGSIPU)

Through Registrar,

Sector – 16-C, Dwarka Campus,

New Delhi.

 

                       ....Petitioner

 

 

Versus

 

 

Ms. Ritika Sharma,  

D/o Ms. Manisha Sharma,  

R/o 2A/3, 2^nd Floor,

Ramesh Nagar, Single Storey,

New Delhi -110015.

....Respondent

 

 

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President.

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

 

1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

 

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) wherein challenge is made to order dated 15.07.2014 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum–VII, New Delhi (in short, “the District Forum”)  in CC No.502/2012.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that a complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed by the respondent/complainant before the District Forum alleging therein that she had applied for admission in the course of Bachelor of Journalist (Mass Communication) for the academic session starting in 2011. She successfully achieved the rank of 1686 and attending the counselling conducted by the appellant/OP on 11.07.2011 and was given admission in the said course. Thereupon, she made payment of Rs.40,000/- towards the fee of the aforesaid course to Registrar, GGSIPU i.e. OP No.3 before the District Forum. Subsequently, she opted withdrawal from the said course due to some financial problems and moved an application seeking refund of fee. However, fee was not refunded to her. Ultimately, she filed a complaint before the District Forum making prayer for refund of the fee along with compensation and litigation expenses.
3. The complaint was opposed by the appellant/OP as well as other OPs by filing a joint written statement, wherein it was stated that as per clause 5 of the admission brochure the respondent/complainant was allowed to withdraw the admission up to 5.00 PM of 25.07.20111. It was alleged that since, she had not applied within the stipulated period as such was not entitled for refund of fee. It was alleged that admission rules and regulations were clearly stated in the admission brochure for the relevant year and the respondent/complainant had given an undertaking to abide by the said rules and regulations as such was not entitled for refund of fees.
4. Rejoinder was filed wherein the respondent/complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint. Both parties filed their evidence in the form of affidavit and also filed documents.
5. After hearing Counsel for the parties, Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered for refund of fee after making deduction of Rs.1,000/- towards administrative expenses.  Ld. District Forum also awarded interest @ 10% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing of complaint till realization and Rs.5,000/- was awarded for costs of litigation.
6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal has been filed.
7. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Ld. District Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the present case as education is not a commodity and the dispute raised is not covered under the Act. In support of her contention, Ld. Counsel has relied upon judgments of Apex Court in Maharishi Dayanand University vs Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159; P.T. Koshy & Anr. vs Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC).  It is further contended that even on merit, the decision is not correct. It is stated that there is no provision for refund of fee for student requesting for withdrawal after the due date. It is contended that in the present case, the respondent/complainant had made request for withdrawal after the due date and even the seat cannot be filled thereafter.
8. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent/complainant despite awaiting.  Perusal of the record shows that for the past two dates of hearing also, no one had appeared for the respondent.  Accordingly, we have heard, Counsel for the appellant/OP and perused the material on record.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC) has held as under:

“In view of the judgement of this Court in Maharishi Dayanand University vs Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgements 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.”

 

10. Following the aforesaid judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the National Commission in Revision Petition No.1684/2009 titled  Registrar Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Vs. Tanvi decided on 29.01.2015 wherein the complaint was filed for refund of fee, has held that complainant is not a ‘consumer’.
11. In the present case, respondent/complainant is seeking refund of fee from appellant/OP.  In view of the above discussion, the respondent/complainant cannot be said to be a ‘consumer’.  District Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.  Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and dismiss the complaint.  However, respondent/complainant Miss Ritika Sharma shall be at liberty to seek redressal of her grievance before any other forum or civil court, in accordance with law.  So far as question of limitation is concerned, she can take advantage of the decision in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute 1995(3) SCC 583.
12. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
13. Copy of this order be given to the parties and be also sent to the District Forum, for information.

           File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member