DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW

CASE No.187 of 2010

       Harmohinder Singh Bagga, aged about 65 yrs.,

       S/o Late Sardar Nihal Singh Bagga,

       Past Address:- 74/2B- Chander Nagar,

       Alambagh, Lucknow.

       Present Address:- 551K/141K, Bhilawan,

                                      Chander Nagar, Lucknow.

                                                                   ……Complainant

Versus

                 1. Saroj Institute of Technology &

                     Management,

                    Ahimamau, P.O.- Argunganj,

                    Sultanpur Road, Lucknow.

                 2. Saroj Institute of Technology &

                     Management,

                     8 Mall Avenue,

                     Lucknow.

                                                                              .......Opp. Parties

Present:-

Sri Vijai Varma, President.

Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.

JUDGMENT

This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs for payment of Rs.45,350.00 with 18% interest, compensation of Rs.15,000.00 and cost of litigation of Rs.5,000.00.

          The case in brief of the Complainant is that the Complainant is the father of Late Km Ravinder Kaur and he got admission for his daughter in the institute of OPs in the year 2007 for MCA course. The OPs provided sops and scholarship for the studies of Complainant’s daughter and got registered the Complainant’s daughter with NGO/UPTU Chhatra Kalyan Nidhi Rules-2003/Samaj Kalyan which has agreed to sponsor the studies of Complainant’s daughter by way of reimbursement of advance fee if deposited by the Complainant during her studies. For the studies of first year of

-2-

MCA the Complainant has paid total amount of Rs.45,350.00 in the account of OPs. The OPs got the reimbursement of fee from the UPTU Chhatra Kalyan Nidhi Rules-2003/Samaj Kalyan which was in advance deposited by the Complainant in the account of OP. Before the said amount could be further reimbursed/returned to the Complainant’s daughter, the Complainant’s daughter Km Ravinder Kaur unfortunately suddenly expired on 17.08.2008 while pursuing her MCA second year. After the death of his daughter the Complainant approached the OPs and requested them to refund the fee as deposited by the Complainant daughter as the said fee stand reimbursed to the OPs under the scholarship as granted to the Complainant’s daughter by UPTU Chhatra Kalyan Nidhi Rules-2003/Samaj Kalyan. The untimely loss of his daughter has ravaged the soul and life of Complainant and now it has become a matter of life and death for the Complainant to survive himself if the fee is not refunded to the Complainant as the Complainant is paying heavy interest through his nose on the loan amount, hence this complaint.

          The OPs have filed objections against the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the answering OPs are not rendering any service, therefore this case does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Citing a case decided by Hon’ble NCDRC in III (2014) CPJ 120 (NC) Regional Institute of Cooperative Management Vs Naveen Kumar Chaudhary & others, it is contended by the answering OPs that this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.

          Heard arguments of the Counsel for the OPs. None for the Complainant to argue. Perused the entire record.

          In this regard, a number of cases decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble NCDRC and Hon’ble SCDRC UP and on the basis of the same it is argued that his complaint is not maintainable in this Forum. In P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs Ellen Charitable Trust and Ors. it has been held by the Hon’ble

-3-

Supreme Court that “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.” In III (2014) CPJ 120 (NC) Regional Institute of Cooperative Management Vs Naveen Kumar Chaudhary & others it has been held by the Hon’ble NCDRC that the educational institution has not provided any kind of service. Also in the case decided by the Hon’ble SCDRC, U.P. in Appeal No.1332/11 MITC & others Vs Kumari Pushpa Bisht and other appeals on 22.08.2014 it has been held that the Complainants/students are not the consumers of the OP and that the education does not come within the purview of the commodity and OP is not a service provider, hence there is no question of deficiency of service, therefore the Complainants are not entitled to any relief from the Forum. On the basis of the aforesaid judgments, it is abundantly clear that the OP being an educational institution, is not a service provider in a case involving fees etc. and therefore this complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act in this Forum. Therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed at this stage itself. However, the Complainant can seek remedy before the appropriate Forum or Civil Court as per law.

ORDER

          The complaint is dismissed.

The parties to bear their own costs.

          (Anju Awasthy)                     (Vijai Varma)

                   Member                                  President

   Dated:    1 September, 2015