Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/102/2020

The Principal, St. Kabir Public School - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rohan Chaudhary - Opp.Party(s)

Munish Goel Adv.

31 May 2021

ORDER

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	102 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	10.07.2020
Date of Decision	:	31.05.2021

The Principal, St. Kabir Public School, Sector 26, Chandigarh (Rattanbir Singh).

                                                       ……Appellant/opposite party.

Versus

Rohan Chaudhary, aged 15 years, son of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, resident of Village Bichapari, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, minor through his father cum natural guardian Sh. Ramesh Kumar.

....Respondent/Complainant.

BEFORE:      JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                    MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                   

Argued by:   THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING   

 

Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

PER  MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                   The opposite party (St. Kabir Public School) has filed this appeal giving challenge to order dated 13.02.2020 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission’) vide which complaint No.597 of 2019 filed by the complainant (respondent herein) has been allowed. The District Commission vide the order impugned directed the opposite party (appellant herein) to refund the balance fee of Rs.27,000/- after deducting Rs.1,000/- towards registration charges and also to pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost and compensation. The order was directed to be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which, the opposite party was made liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/-.

2.                In the instant case, there is no dispute as regards the complainant taking admission in Class-11 in opposite party – School by depositing Rs.65,021/- on 10.04.2019 and thereafter, joining another school i.e St. Johns Public School, without attending even for a single day in opposite party – school. When he sought refund of the deposited fee, the opposite party refunded only an amount of Rs.38,021/- after deducting Rs.27,000/-. However, it was the case of the opposite party that the amount of Rs.27,000/- were admission charges, which were not refundable in case, the student withdrew from school after taking admission. It was further stated that the complainant was not a consumer qua the opposite party.

3.                The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the District Commission illegally allowed the complaint without taking into consideration the recent judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Manu Solanki & 8 Ors. Vs. Vinayaka Mission University (Formerly known as Vinayaka Mission’s Research Foundation Deemed University), Consumer Case No.261 of 2012 decided on 20.01.2020 wherein it was held that the institutions rendering education including vocational courses and activities  undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sports, etc. except coaching institutions, will not be covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was further stated that the District Commission wrongly held that the aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble National Commission has prospective effect and not retrospective one. Further reliance was placed on the judgments of P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC), Bihar School Education Board Vs. Suresh Parshad Sina, 2009 (8) SCC 483, Prof. K. K. Ramachandran, Director/Vice Principal, G.R.D. College of Science, Coimbatore Vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Anr., Civil Appeal No.4133 of 2013 decided on 29.04.2013 and State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K. Shyam Sunder & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 737.

4.                The only question to be addressed in this appeal is as to whether the respondent/complainant is consumer under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not in view of judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled Manu Solanki & 8 Ors’s  (supra).

5.                No doubt, in case titled Manu Solanki & 8 Ors’s  (supra), the Hon’ble National Commission held that the institutions rendering education including vocational courses and activities  undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sports, etc. except coaching institutions, will not be covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

6.        Further, this Commission has relied upon the apex court judgment titled as P.T. Koshy & anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., wherein it is held as under:-

“In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. 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.”

Accordingly, we find that the appellant who falls in the category of educational institution, and cannot be held for deficiency in service and therefore, the appeal is allowed. In the instant case also, the complainant/respondent cannot be said to be consumer qua the opposite party/appellant. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Commission stands set aside.

7.                For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

8.                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

31. 05.2021.                                                                                   Sd/-

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

GP