( Delivered on 7/2/2018)

Per  Smt. Jayshree Yengal, Hon’ble Member

1. These two appeals   are filed by opposite parties ( for short OP0 challenging the identical orders dated 17/8/2013 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Buldhana partly allowing  two  consumer complaints bearing Nos. 67/13 and 68/13. The District Consumer Forum, by the aforesaid orders passed in the two consumer complaints has directed as under:

1. The opposite party/appellant herein to resolve the dispute in respect of the enhancement of fees from the Director of Education.
2. The Forum has further restrained OP from taking any steps  against the complainant student for non-payment of the fees as the said issue of enhancement of fees is pending for approval as per the directions issued by the Forum in the aforesaid clause. The Forum has also partly modified the aforesaid direction to the extent that in case of the fee being enhanced and  in case of the complainant’s inability to pay the same,  then the complainant would be at liberty to take admission in some other school for which the OP should extend all its co-operation and supply the necessary documents without any objection.
3. The Forum has in addition to the aforesaid directions has directed the OP in consumer complaint bearing No. 68 of 2013  to accept the cheque of Rs. 4,850/- of  State Bank of India issued by the complainant  towards the education fee for the year 2012-2013 and to allow the complainant for  taking education by admitting him  in the school. The OP is restrained from  charging the enhance fees till the same is approved by Director of Education.
4. The OP to render education and facilities  as per rules of CBSE board .
5. The OP to pay Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- to the complainants in each complaint as compensation for mental and physical harassment and cost of proceeding respectively.

2. Respondent No. 1  Mr. Sambhav son of Dharamchand Surana through his guardian/ father Dharamchand Saubhagchand Surana in appeal No. 172/2013 and respondent No. 1 Shreyance son of Surajsingh Gaur  through guardian father Surajsingh Gaur in appeal No. 173/13 are referred as complainants.
3. The appellant No. 1 Mr. Anil Damji Vikamsi in both the appeals  and 13 other appellants are referred as opposite parties ( for short OP)  for the sake of convenience.
4. The complainants in both the complaints are students and availing education in the School run by the OP in the name and styled as S.S.D.V. Gyanpith. The complainants have filed identical consumer complaints seeking identical reliefs.
5. The complainants  in both the complaints have sought following reliefs:

1. Legal action against the OPs as they have demanded enhanced fees from the complainants and they have already accepted enhanced fees from other students and failed to provide education and facilities  in accordance with CBSE Board rules.
2. Refund the enhanced fee to the students who have paid to the OPs.
3. The OPs to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment caused to the complainants due to the illegal acts of OP. The amount of compensation to be paid to the complainants with 12 percent per annum interest.
4. The OP to pay Rs. 10,000/- each to the complainants towards cost of proceedings.

6. The complainants in both the complaints have sought for aforesaid reliefs on identical facts  and grounds which are as under.

1. The complainants are students of standard  7 and standard  9  respectively of the school run by the OP under the name SSDV Gyanpith. They have paid the fees as demanded by the OP. The OP is duty bound to render good education, educational material, facilities and  services. The OP had sought for approval of CBSE Board on fabricated documents. The father of the complainant had filed a  private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class  Khamgaon. The Education Officer, ZillaParishad Buldhana had also sent a letter to the Secretary of Secondary Education and Sports Department of Government of Maharashtra recommending the cancellation of the  no objection certificate (NOC) issued by the Government. The Principal and the assistant teachers appointed in the school were also not in accordance with the rules  and the salary was also  not paid to them in accordance with rules.
2. The OP has failed to provide the required laboratory for the students to study physics, chemistry, computer and maths
3. The OP has enhanced the fees  and demanded the same from the students. A writ petition was filed by the guardian  of the students before the Hon’ble High Court challenging the unreasonable enhancement in fees. The OP has failed to provide good education and facilities to students and is illegally demanding enhanced fees. The OP has withheld the results of the complainants.

7. The complainants have alleged  deficiency in service against the OP on the aforesaid facts and filed the consumer complaints seeking reliefs as mentioned above.
8. The OPs  resisted both the complaints  by filing identical written versions and denied all the adverse allegations of the complainants. The OP has submitted  the  preliminary objections  as under:

1. The complainants are not a consumers of the OP.
2. The educational institutions do not fall within the perview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
3. The complainants are not a consumer as  they have  not paid the requisite fees in spite of the fact that the complainants are repeatedly  reminded to pay the fees in writing.

9. The OP has specifically submitted that a parents-teacher association had passed a resolution on 24/7/2010 approving the enhancement in fees and also other issues. The father of the complainant is a signatory to the aforesaid resolution. The father of the complainant  Mr. Surana has also by a letter sought for apology of the OP. The complainant has suppressed all these facts and therefore  complaints deserve  to be dismissed with cost.
10. The Forum below after hearing both the sides, partly allowed both the complaints with directions as aforesaid.
11. Being aggrieved, the OP has preferred the aforesaid two appeals challenging the identical orders passed in  the above two consumer complaints.
12. The appellant/OP has challenged the impugned order firstly on the ground that the consumer complaints should have been dismissed as  not tenable because  the student welfare society, which runs the SSDV Gyanpith was not made a party to the consumer complaint. The Directors of the Students welfare society were made party in their personal capacity.

     Secondly, the complainants do not fall within the definition of consumer given   under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

     Thirdly, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are not applicable to the educational institution. Fourthly, the respondents/original complainants have failed to pay the fees in spite of repeated reminders being given by the appellant/original OP.

     Fifthly, The appellant has sought for quashing and setting aside of the impugned order as the District Consumer Forum failed to observe that the revision of fees is  required to be approved in Parents-Teachers Association (PTA)  Meeting as per  Bye law No. 11 of CBSE Affiliation bye laws. The revision in fee structure was approved in PTA Meeting dated 24/7/2010. The resolution was signed by the father of respondent No. 1/complainant.

13. We heard counsel for the appellant. Advocate of  the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 did not  make oral submission.  The  counsel for respondent No. 1 however submitted  that the written notes of arguments (W.N.A.)  filed  by him be treated as his oral arguments. We perused the written notes   of arguments and copies of the complaint, written version and documents filed  by both the parties.
14. The only issue that survives  for our consideration is whether the appellant/original OP while enhancing the fee structure has followed the rules laid down by the CBSE board. We perused rule 11 of CBSE fee rule which reads as “ The unaided schools should consult parent’s representative before revising the fees. The fee should not be revised during mid session.” We also perused the communication dated 21/2/2011 from CBSE which reflects that the CBSE rules and by laws are to be followed. It nowhere prescribed of taking any approval to the fee structure from the Education Officer or Director of Education.
15. The contentions of the appellant that the revised fee structure was approved by Parents Teacher Association  in its meeting dated 24/7/2010 finds support by the document which is on record which gives the minutes of the Parents Teachers Meeting held on 24/7/2010.  It has recorded the presence of the Members of the SSDV Gyanpith Khamgaon and the representative parent of students of class 2 to 10. The guardian of complainant in complaint bearing No. 172/2013 and 173/2013 have signed  and marked their presence as Vice President and Joint Secretary of the Committee. The resolution No. 5 is unanimously passed in respect of enhancement of fee by 50 percent for the term 2010-2011 and enhancement by 10 to 15 percent  for subsequent years.
16.  The only inference that can be drawn from all the  documents is that the appellants have not rendered any deficiency in service or adopted any unfair trade practice by enhancing fee as above. Hence the complainants cannot be said to have proved the consumer complaint for the aforesaid reason. We are of the reasoned view that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law. For the foregoing reason, both the appeals deserve to be allowed. In the result, we pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Both the appeals are  allowed.
2. The impugned orders dated  17/8/2013, passed by the District Consumer Forum, in both the complaints bearing Nos. 37/2013 and 68/2013 are set aside. Both the said complaints stand dismissed.
3. No order as to cost in appeals.
4. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.