Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/19/1298

PRIYANKA SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

RKDF DENTAL COLLEGE & RESEARCH CENTRE - Opp.Party(s)

SH.RAJESH SEN

02 Jan 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 1298 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 11.06.2019 passed in C.C.No.290/2016 by the District Commission, Bhopal-2)

                                                    

PRIYANKA SINGH D/O PRAHLAD SINGH.                                                    …          APPELLANT.

 

                   Versus

                 

MANAGER, RKDF DENTAL COLLEGE, BHOPAL.                                          …         RESPONDENT.

                                                                                                          

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                 :      ACTINIG PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY         :       MEMBER 

                 

 

                                      O R D E R

02.01.2024

 

            Shri R. K. Sen, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri Rajeev Acharya, learned counsel for the respondent.

           

 

As per A. K. Tiwari : 

                        Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 12.06.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal-2 (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.290/2016 whereby the complaint filed by her has been dismissed, has filed this appeal.

2.                Heard. Perused the record.

3.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission has committed grave error in dismissing the complaint. He argued that the complainant took admission in BDS course of four year plus one year training in the opposite party institution and the institution charged Rs.55,030/- in excess from her. On filing complaint before the

-2-

District Commission, the District Commission dismissed the complaint holding it as time barred whereas cause of action arose on 03.08.2015 when the institution denied to refund the amount charged in excess and the complainant has filed the complaint on 20.04.2016 which is well within limitation. He argued that this appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set-aside.

4.                Learned counsel for the respondent placing reliance on a decision of National Commission in M.J.P.Rohailkhand University Vs Ravindra Kumar Jaiswal II (2019) CPJ 40 (NC) argued that the District Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint with regard to refund of fees as it is not a consumer dispute.

5.                Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we find that a preliminary issue as to whether educational institutions providing education and other activities to the students come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not, arises in this case and the said issue is squarely covered by the decision of larger bench of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Manu Solanki & Others Vs Vinayak Mission University and other connected cases, I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC) wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that “Educational matters do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore the complaint

-3-

filed by the complainant/student is not maintainable. Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain such complaints” Same view has been taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Rai Technology University Vs Prakurthi N. V. I (2023) CPJ 154 (NC).

6.                The law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in Manu Solanki (supra) is fully applicable in the present matter and the Institute does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it is not rendering any service.

7.                In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that dispute raised by the complainant is not a consumer dispute and the complaint filed by him is not maintainable before the District Commission. Thus, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the District Commission. Accordingly, it is hereby affirmed.

8.                In the result, the appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

                     (A. K. Tiwari)               (Dr. Srikant Pandey)       

               Acting President                       Member