Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/246

Nidhi kaushik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahil study - Opp.Party(s)

02 Mar 2017

ORDER

  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

  GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                      Date of institution: 31.03.2016

Complaint Case. No.246/16                                                          Date of order: 02.03.2017               

IN  MATTER OF

Nidhi Kaushik, D/o. Shri Dinesh Kaushik, R/o. C-2/16, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002.

 

Also at:- Flat no.B-102, Harmoney Apartment, Plot No.6B, Sector-23, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077.                                                                                                                                Complainant

        VERSUS

Sahil Study Circle Private Limited, Corporate office :- B-1/637, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.

 

Also at:- A-1/17, (Basement) Janakpuri, Near Metro Pillar No.636, New Delhi-110088.

 

Also at :-23B, Pusa Road, Block-11, Rajender Nagar, New Delhi-110060.                                                                                                                                                                       Opposite party

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

Briefly case of the complainant is that she took admission in coaching classes in the opposite Party an education institution on payment of requisite fee. The complainant soon realized that the opposite party is not imparting quality education. Therefore, the complainant approached and requested the opposite party to refund the fee paid.  But the opposite party refused to refund the same.   Hence, the present complaint for directions  to  the opposite party to pay Rs.94,100/-of the fee charged with interest @9% per annum and pay compensation on account of loss of study, lodging and  boarding charges, litigation expenses and mental pain and agony and  deficiency in service.  

            Despite service of notice none appeared on behalf of the opposite party. So the opposite party was proceeded exparte vide order dated 22.07.17.

When the complainant was asked to lead evidence in support of her version. She filed affidavit of Shri Dinesh Kaushik her father. She also relied upon Ex-CW-1/1 detail of fee, Ex-CW-1/2 fee receipt, Ex-CW-1/3 detail of fee charges of material letter dated 11.02.2014, Ex-CW-1/4  letter dated 30.09.2014, Ex-CW-1/5 letter dated 02.10.2014, Ex-CW-1/6 postal receipts, Ex-CW-1/7 complaint dated 02.10.2014, Ex-CW-1/7B letter dated 02.10.2014, Ex-CW-1/7C undelivered  letter, Ex-CW-1/8 letter dated 12.11.2014, Ex-CW-1/9 letter dated 18.12.2014, Ex-CW-1/10 receipt dated 14.02.2014, Ex-CW-1/11 receipt dated 17.04.2014, Ex-CW-1/12 receipt dated 11.07.2014, Ex-CW-1/13 receipt dated 13.07.2014, Ex-CW-1/14  Acknowledgement/cash receipt, Ex-CW-1/15 envelope  containing CD of telephonic conversation, Ex-CW-1/16A to Ex-CW-1/19B telephonic conversation. 

We have heard the Learned Counsel for the complainant at length and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.  We are of the opinion that the main controversy/ issue is “whether Ms. Nidhi Kaushik the complainant, is consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and the opposite party is service provider”?

These issues have been dealt in detail by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case reported as MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY VS SURJEET KAUR 2010 (11)Supreme Court Cases 159 .  Wherein it is held that education is not a commodity. The educational institutions are not service providers. Therefore, the students are not consumers. Similar view is taken by another bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in special leave petition no.22532/12 titled P.T.KOSHY& ANR VS ELLEN CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS decided on 9.8.12.  Similar view is taken by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition no. 1684/2009 titled as REGISTRAR ,GGS INDERAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY VS MISS TANVI decided on 29.1.2015 ,in Revision Petition No. 4335/14 titled as Mayank Tiwari vs  Fiitjee decided on 8.12.14, in Revision Petition No. 3365/2006 titled FIITJEE VS DR.(MRS) MINATHI RATH, in Revision Petition No. 1805/2007 titled FITJEE VS B.B.POPLI, Revision Petition No. 3496/2006 P.T.Education vs Dr MINATHI and in Revision Petition No. 2660/2007  all decided on 14.11.11 by common order.   Similar view is also taken by Hon’ble  State Commission of Chandigarh in Appeal no. 244/2014 titled M/s fiitjee ltd vs Mayank Tiwari decided on 23.9.14.

Similar are the facts of the present complaint. The complainant took admission in coaching classes with the opposite party an education Institution on payment of requisite fee.  The opposite party is imparting education. Therefore as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commission of Chandigarh Consistently education is not a commodity and the opposite party is not service provider and the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.

Therefore, complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act-1986.   Resultantly  the complaint is dismissed.

Order pronounced on : 02.03.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

                         (URMILA GUPTA)                                     (R.S.  BAGRI)

                              MEMBER                                                  PRESIDENT