Haryana

Panchkula

CC/46/2019

PUNEET NAYYAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.S.D.K EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY(REGD). - Opp.Party(s)

ARUN GOEL.

13 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	46 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	16.01.2019
Date of Decision	:	13.09.2022

 

 

Puneet Nayyar son of Late Sh. A.K.Nayyar, Resident of H.N.1011, Sector-16, Panchkula.

           ….Complainant

 

Versus

S.B.D.K.Educational Society(Regd.), Saupin’s School, Sector-9, Panchkula through its Managing Director/Principal.

….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:   Sh. Arun Goel, Advocate, for complainant. 

                        Sh. Krishan Singla, Advocate for the OP.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant has a daughter, namely, Mishthi, who was the student of the school of OP, vide admission no.2728 and she had studied upto 21.04.2018 in the OP’s school. He has deposited a sum of Rs.18,500/- vide deposit slip dated 10.04.2018 as maintenance charges, development charges, student welfare charges for the Session April 2018 to March 2019. The complainant has also deposited bimonthly fee (for April/May) of Rs.6,200/-. The OP has issued a School Leaving Certificate to the complainant on 21.04.2018 on the request of the complainant and thus, OP is entitled to retain the funds of one month (April 2018) only from the total amount. The complainant has withdrawn his ward from the OP school after 15 days of the admission. It is alleged that the complainant had requested the OP in writing to refund the deposited amount by deducting the one month charges from the total amount but the same was not refunded.  Thereafter, he had visited the OP school a number of times for the refund but the OP always lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and finally in the first week of October 2018, the OP refused to refund the amount to the complainant. Due to the acts and conducts of the OP, the complainant has suffered physical harassment, mental agony and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, the OP has appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable; no jurisdiction; non-joinder of necessary parties; no cause of action. It is stated that Miss Mishti took admission in the school of the OP in the class of UKG on 02.04.2014 and continued with the school till 21.04.2018 upto class IV(B). Miss Misthi was promoted to class IV(B) and she attended classes upto April, 2018. The complainant approached the OP on 21.04.2018 and requested for the transfer certificate since his child got admission in another school. The transfer certificate was issued on same day i.e. 21.04.2018 and the complainant was informed accordingly but he came on 01.05.2018 to collect the same. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant’s daughter continued with the classes for two months and the seat left by her remained vacant for the whole year. The complainant’s daughter left the school in the mid of the session. It is averred that in the fee book, it is categorically mentioned that no fee would be refundable. On merits, pleas and assertions made in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

3.             To prove the case, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-7 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP tendered affidavit Annexure R-1 alongwith Annexure R-1 to R-6 and closed the evidence.

4.             We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record available on the file, carefully and minutely.

5.             The payment of sum of Rs.24,700/- made by the complainant to OP qua admission of his daughter in IV^th  class for the session 2018-19 vide deposit slip(Annexure C-2(colly)) is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the complainant had made the request for the refund of said amount after the issuance of school leaving certificate on 07.02.2019. The complainant had also sent legal notice (Annexure C-3) to OP seeking the refund of the said amount of Rs.20,059/-.

                During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint has prayed for the refund of Rs.20,059/- alongwith interest as well as compensation on account of harassment, litigations charges etc.

6.             The OP has resisted the complaint by raising preliminary objections as well as on merits in its written statement. The OP has raised a serious dispute about the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the student vis-à-vis the educational institutions. In this regard, the learned counsel for the OP has contended that the controversy as involved in the present complaint has been adjudicated by the Hon’ble National Commission vide its order dated 20.01.2020  passed in consumer case no.261 of 2012 titled as Manu Solanki & Ors. Vs. Vinayaka Mission University and other connected consumer cases and Revision Petitions and thus, has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant contended that there exists relationship of consumer and service provider between the student and the educational institutions. In this regard, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble High Court on 19.11.2010 in CWP No.20339 of 2008 titled as Meenu Kaur Vs. Shri Guru Ramdass Institute of Dental Sciences and Research Amritsar & another. The learned counsel further contended that the OP institute has no right to withhold the admission fee. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the judgment dated 21.07.2010 passed by Hon’ble High Court in CWP No.13308 of 2009 titled as Sh. Atam Parkash Khattar & Another Vs. Commissioner & Secretary to Govt. of Haryana & others. It is further contended that the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in Manu Solanki case(supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the law propounded by the Hon’ble National Commission is applicable prospectively and not retrospectively and thus, the complaint is liable to be accepted.

8.             Admittedly, the controversy in the present case is related about the refund of the admission fee etc. as deposited by the complainant in the OP institute qua the admission of his daughter, so, it is necessary to look into the relationship of student vis-à-vis the educational institution, which provides education related services to its students.  

9.             In this regard, the Hon’ble National Commission in Manu Solanki case(supra) after having a detailed discussion of various case laws as propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in cases such as Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010(11) SCC 159, dated 19.07.2010, P.T.Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., 2012(3) CPCP 615(SC), Anupama College of Engineering Vs. Gulshan Kumar and Anr.  in civil appeal nos. 17802 and 17803 of 2017 dated 30.10.2017 and P.Sreenivasulu & Anr. Vs. P.J.Alexander & Anr.  in Civil Appeal Nos.7003-7004 of 2015 dated 09.09.2015 held that the educational institutions do not provide any service to the students. The relevant para of the said order/judgment for the sake of clarity and convenience is reproduced as under:-

51.     In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Institution 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, sport, etc. except Coaching institutions, will, therefore, not be        covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

10.            Pertinently, the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the Manu Solanki case(supra) is now pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Diary No.12901 of 2020, wherein  the Hon’ble Bench comprising of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, JJ.on 15.10.2020 passed the following order in the case of Manu Solanki (supra).

                “Since there are divergent views of this court bearing on the subject as to whether an educational institution or university would be subject to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the appeal would require admission”. In another SLP No.16591 of 2021 titled as Rajendra Kumar Gupta Vs. Dr.Virendra Swarup Public School & Anr. involving similar question of law and facts, the Hon’ble Apex Court passed the following orders:-

        “Having regard to the pendency of Civil Appeal no.3504 of 2020 (Manu Solanki and others Vs.Vinayaka Mission University), the issue as to whether education is a service within the   Consumer Protection Act, is           pending before this Court”.

11.            Since the moot question qua the relationship between the student and the educational institution is yet to be decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Manu Solanki case(supra) as well as other connected case, it would be proper to adjourn the case sine die till the controversy is  final settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court  and it is ordered accordingly. However, it is made clear that either of the party to the complaint shall be at liberty to get the present complaint restored at its original number as and when the controversy involved in the present case is finally adjudicated by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

Announced on:13.09.2022

 

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal  

           Member                          Member                     President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                         Satpal,                       

                                        President