Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/399/2012

Hardesh Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ryan International School - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant in person

28 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/399/2012
Date  of  Institution	:	06/08/2012
Date   of   Decision	:	28.05.2015

 

 

 

 

 

(1)     Hardeh Goyal S/o Sh. Hem Raj Goyal, R/o #126, HIG, Sector 48-C, Chandigarh.

 

(2)     Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass, R/o Kothi No.1090, Sector 68, Mohali.

 

(3)     Anil Verma S/o Sh. Satya Parkash, R/o #255 Swastic Vihar, Zirakpur.

 

(4)     Rajesh S/o Sh. Chaman Lal, R/o Kothi No.1227, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh.

 

                            ...Complainants

 

Vs

 

(1)     Ryan International School, Sector 49, Chandigarh, through its Principal.

 

(2)     Managing Director, Ryan International Group of Institutions, having Corporate Office and Regional Office (West) at Ashan Nagar, Kandivilli (E), Mumbai – 400101.  

 

(3)     C.B.S.E., through the Secretary at CBSE, Regional office, Sector 5, Panchkula.

 

….Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:      SH.RAJAN DEWAN                                                PRESIDENT

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU              MEMBER

MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA                             MEMBER

 

Argued By:    Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Counsel for Complainants

Sh.Rajesh Verma, Proxy Counsel for Sh.Neeraj Sharma, Counsel for OP No.2.

None for OPs No.1 and 3.

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

                   Earlier this complaint was disposed of by this Forum vide order dated 19.09.2014 against which the complainants preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission. The said appeal was accepted by the Hon'ble State Commission vide its order dated 08.12.2014 and the order of this Forum was set aside and the case was remanded back to this Forum for deciding the case afresh  by passing a specific order, after affording hearing to the Counsel for the parties.

2.                 This Complaint had initially been filed by four Complainants. However, on statements made by the Complainants No. 1 & 2 namely Hardesh Goyal and Rajesh Kumar, to the effect that they did not represent Complainants No. 3 & 4 namely Anil Verma and Rajesh, the Complaint qua Complainants No.3 & 4 was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 21.12.2012.

3.                 The Complainants have stated that they are parents of children studying in different classes of Ryan International School (Opposite Party No.1) and are paying fees and purchasing books, uniforms and other articles from the School as desired by the School. The total numbers of students in the whole country studying in Ryan International Schools are about 3 lac. It is further averred that the Opposite Parties under the garb of School are doing various commercial activities. They have opened a Book Shop in all Branches of the Schools where the Complainants have to buy all the articles like note books, copy covers, books, school uniforms, coat, blazers etc. compulsorily at sky rocking prices. Also the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 changes the syllabus of every class every year hence it is obligatory for the parents to purchase new books. The books and articles are sold at sky rocking prices. The Complainants have given details of various books available with the Opposite Parties along with the name of Publisher and price demanded, besides the market price and the difference thereof. It is alleged that the books and syllabus is the standard one prescribed by the CBSE to its affiliated Schools for which NCERT Books are available. The Complainants have further alleged that Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have committed glaring mistakes against CBSE Rules by not engaging competent staff and paying salaries as per CBSE norms as also violation of teacher pupil ratio and demanding donations from the parents of the children each year. Further, Opposite Parties have converted the 2 acre playground of the school into parking area. The Complainants have thus prayed that Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 who are in the habit of manipulating rules and charging extraordinarily from the parents be directed to immediately discontinue monopoly in selling the books and other articles, besides maintain syllabus on the pattern of CBSE only and also to stop interfering with the syllabus pattern of CBSE each year and instead adopt NCERT books. The Complainants have also prayed that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 be directed not to ask for capitation fee or any other contribution every year which is violation of Section 13(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The Complainants have further made a prayer that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 be asked to produce the record of Capitation fee in last 2 years or the amounts paid voluntarily by the parents to get admission, as also details of teaching staff, their respective qualifications, kind of job etc. The Complainants have further prayed that Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 be directed to restore 2 acre play ground of the School converted into the parking area. The Complainants have also prayed that costs be imposed on Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 for imparting sub-standard education to the children of the Complainants, besides costs of litigation and harassment. Prayer is also made that violation of CBSE norms should not take place.  

4.                 Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

5.                 The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have filed joint reply. It is submitted that Ryan International School is a minority un-aided private school and has over 100 Schools all over the country. The total numbers of students enrolled with the Opposite Party No.1 are about 3600. Further, it is averred that no commercial activity as alleged by the Complainant is being carried out by the answering Opposite Parties. The book counter is temporarily opened and operated exclusively by the Seller during the admission days for the convenience of the students and parents so that they can buy books in the school premises itself. This facility is highly appreciated and welcomed by the parents. All articles like uniform etc. are provided in the School premises itself by the Seller and the answering Opposite Parties have no role to play. No complaint has ever been received regarding the quality or costs of the products sold. Further, the School has not issued any mandatory compulsion to buy the books from the School only. It is at the convenience of parents, but as per prescribed syllabus which is as per CBSE guidelines to which the Opposite Parties are bound. Opposite Parties have also averred that the Complainants have not mentioned the name of the Publisher of which the market price has been mentioned and the difference pointed out is the self assumption and presumption of the Complainants without any record. Opposite Parties are bound by the Byelaws of CBSE and affiliation is subject to the norms laid out. Further the staff and salary is as per CBSE norms and the allegations of the Complainants regarding demanding donation is absolutely wrong and denied. The play ground is only used for playing of children and has not been converted into parking area. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.                 Opposite Party No.3 (CBSE) has maintained that it is the Educational Board and conducts the examination of the students. As per settled law, disputes between the student and school is not a consumer dispute and Students are not the consumers, as the Board does not provide services within the definition as contained in the Act. The grievance of the Complainants are against fee hike and charging of exorbitant capitation fee and other contributions every year etc. for which the Board has framed sufficient rules. Fees are required to be charged as per those rules. Further, the Board is discouraging Schools from prescribing the books from private publishers and has been emphasizing for NCERT books.  In the para-wise reply, Opposite Party No.3 has stated that all paras relate to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. However, the syllabus is prescribed by CBSE which is same for all Schools. Opposite Party No.3 has therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.     

7.                 Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

8.                 On 22.05.2015, when the case was fixed for arguments, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 & 3. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4 (8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Act (as amended upto date) even in the absence of Opposite Parties No.1 and 3.

9.                 We have heard the counsel for the complainants, Counsel for OP No.2  and have perused the record.

10.              In view of the allegations contained in the complaint, the core question to be decided in this case is, as to whether, the complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in view of the principal laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.22532 of 2012 decided on 9.8.2012. The answer to the question is the negative. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy & Another’s case (supra) held as under: -

“In view of the judgment of this court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159 = 2010 (2) CPC 696 SC, 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 the matter of admission, fees, etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency in 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.”

 11.             Besides this in  Regional Institute of Cooperative Management Vs. Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Revision Petition No.638 of 2014, decided on 02.05.2014, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that neither the student, fell within the definition of a consumer, nor  the Opposite Parties fell within the definition of Service Providers.

12.              Our view is further strengthened from the order passed by our own Hon’ble State Commission in First Appeal No.244 of 2014-M/s FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs. Mayank Tiwari, decided on 23.9.2014 whereby the appeal filed by M/s FIITJEE Ltd. was accepted and the order of this Forum was set aside and it was held that the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer.          Even the order dated 23.09.2014, aforesaid,  passed by our own Hon'ble State Commission has been upheld by the Hon'ble National Commission vide its order dated 08.12.2014 passed  in Revision Petition No.4335/2014- Mayank Tiwari Vs. M/s FIITJEE Ltd. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

13.               For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is not maintainable and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainants are at liberty to seek any other legal remedy, which is available to them under law.

14.              Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

28.05.2015.                                                          

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER