DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW
CASE No.772 of 2009
Sri Ramakant Verma,
R/o 569 K/226T, Sneh Nagar,
VIP Road, Alambagh,
Lucknow.
……Complainant
Versus
Director,
Saroj Institute of Technology & Management,
Sultanpur Road, Ahma Mau,
Lucknow.
.......Opp. Party
CASE No.240 of 2013
Sonia Verma,
D/o Sri Prithvi Chandra Verma,
22, Hata Ramdas, Sadar Bazar,
Cantt., Lucknow.
……Complainant
Versus
1. Saroj Institute of Technology & Management,
Arjunganj, Lucknow.
Through Managing Director.
2. Gautam Budh Technical University,
Sitapur Road, Lucknow.
Through Registrar .
.......Opp. Parties
CASE No.241 of 2013
Sri Deshraj Singh,
S/o Sri Bhole Lal,
R/o Gram Nigri, Post-Jahangirabad Raj,
District- Barabanki.
……Complainant
-2-
Versus
1. Saroj Institute of Technology & Management,
Arjunganj, Lucknow.
Through Managing Director.
2. Gautam Budh Technical University,
Sitapur Road, Lucknow.
Through Registrar .
.......Opp. Parties
CASE No.242 of 2013
Sri Pradeep Kumar,
S/o Sri Radhey Shayam,
R/o SSE, 38, Sector C,
Sitapur Road Yojna, Jankipuram,
Lucknow.
……Complainant
Versus
1. Saroj Institute of Technology & Management,
Arjunganj, Lucknow.
Through Managing Director.
2. Gautam Budh Technical University,
Sitapur Road, Lucknow.
Through Registrar .
.......Opp. Parties
CASE No.243 of 2013
Sri Pankaj Kumar,
R/o 69, Dayal Fort,
Vishnupuri 3, Aliganj,
Lucknow.
……Complainant
Versus
1. Saroj Institute of Technology & Management,
Arjunganj, Lucknow.
Through Managing Director.
2. Gautam Budh Technical University,
Sitapur Road, Lucknow.
Through Registrar .
.......Opp. Parties
-3-
CASE No.1067 of 2013
Sri Deepraj,
R/o Gram & Post-Kahinjari Bada Gaon,
District- Kanpur Dehat.
……Complainant
Versus
1. Saroj Institute of Technology & Management,
Arjunganj, Lucknow.
Through Managing Director.
2. Gautam Budh Technical University,
Sitapur Road, Lucknow.
Through Registrar .
.......Opp. Parties
Present:-
Sri Vijai Varma, President.
Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.
Sri Rajarshi Shukla, Member.
JUDGMENT
These complaints are being disposed of together by one judgment as the facts and the law point involved of the aforesaid cases are nearly the same, therefore the aforesaid cases are decided together. The Case No.772/09 is the leading case.
The facts of the case No.772/09 in brief are that the Complainant took admission in the institution of OP in the B.Pharma course but despite she passing B. Pharma in first division in 2007 she has not been given the certificate. Besides excess fees of Rs.8,625.00 was demanded which she had to deposit and caution money of Rs.5,000.00 was not returned, hence this case for refund of the excess amount and the caution money with compensation.
The facts of the Case No.240/13 in brief are that the Complainant took admission in the institute of OP No.1 and deposited Rs.58,950.00. The Complainant’s tution fees was deposited by the Samaj Kalyan Vibhag with the OPs so when
-4-
the Complainant completed the course she demanded Rs.59,850.00 the fee deposited by her but the OPs instead, demanded Rs.1,26,000.00 saying that the tution fee for the academic year 2007-08 was not received and the OPs did not refund the amount Rs.58,950.00 nor the marksheets and degree were given to her, hence this complaint for refund of the fee and for returning of the marksheets and certificates etc.
The facts of the Case No.241/13 in brief are that the Complainant took admission in the academic session of 2007-08 in the institution of the OP directly in second year as he was a diploma holder. He was told that he was to deposit Rs.40,000.00 as tution fee which will be returned by the Samaj Kalyan Vibhag and that he would get Rs.3,300.00 as scholarship from the Samaj Kalyan Vibhag. The fees was of Rs.32,500.00 was returned by Samaj Kalyan Vibhag to the OP college and Complainant also got scholarship of Rs.3,300.00 in that academic session but when the Complainant went to receive his degree and marksheets from the OP, he was told that the tution fee for the course is not deposited by the Samaj Kalyan Vibhag, hence he had to deposit Rs.97,500.00 and then only degree and marksheets would be given. When the Complainant asked the OPs to give him the marksheets and the degrees as it was the matter between the OP and Samaj Kalyan Vibhag, then the OPs refused to do so without payment of Rs.97,500.00, hence this complaint.
The facts of the Case No.242/13 in brief are that the Complainant took admission in the institution of OP in B.Tech course on 10.08.2006 and deposited Rs.58,950.00. The Samaj Kalyan Vibhag deposited Rs.35,800.00 for the academic session 2006-07 with the OPs which include Rs.32,500.00 as tution fee and Rs.3,300.00 as scholarship but the OPs did not return this amount to the Complainant which is unfair trade practice. In the next academic session of 2007-08 also the OPs misappropriated the amount of scholarship sent by Samaj
-5-
Kalyan Vibhag for the Complainant. After completion of the course and passing the examination when the Complainant asksed for refund of Rs.41,000.00 and caution money of Rs.5,000.00 from the OPs and also demanded the marksheets and the degree then the OPs demanded illegal money from the Complainant and thus committed unfair trade practice, hence this complaint.
The facts of the Case No.243/13 in brief are that the Complainant took admission in the institution of OP in B.Tech course for the academic session 2004-05. The Complainant had deposited all the fees and continued her study in the institution of OP No.1. The Complainant had passed first year of B.Tech course but unfortunately could not pass second and third year, hence the course was completed in 6 years instead of 4 years. The Complainant did not avail the facility of bus but the OP got Rs.10,000.00 deposited by the Complainant for the academic year 2009-10. The OPs provided provisional certificate to the Complainant on 14.07.2010 and at that time the Complainant had no dues in the institution of OP. The Complainant visited the OPs for marksheets and degree many times but the OPs did not provide the same. On 11.03.2013 the Complainant visited the institution of OP for his degree and marksheets but the OPs have committed unfair trade practice by demanding Rs.45,425.00 from the Complainant which caused harassment to the Complainant. The OPs also did not return the caution money of Rs.5,000.00, hence this complaint.
The facts of the Case No.1067 of 13 in brief are that the Complainant took admission in 4 years B.Tech (CS) course on 22.07.2006 and also deposited the fees. The OPs got Rs.1,14,900.00 deposited on different dates from the Complainant. The Complainant was told by the OPs that the fees of 4 years is Rs.2,29,000.00 in which tution fees of Rs.1,37,140.00 will be returned by Samaj Kalyan Vibhag. The Complainant had not availed the services of bus but the OPs
-6-
recovered the charges of bus for 4 years from the Complainant. After completion of studies for the year 2011-12 the Complainant contacted OPs on 14.06.2012 for marksheets and degree but the OPs got Rs.25,000.00 deposited by the Complainant but did not provide marksheets. The OPs had not returned the caution money of Rs.5,000.00 to the Complainant. The OPs by depositing excess amount of Rs.23,040.00 from the Complainant and by not providing marksheets and degree to the Complainant, committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, hence this complaint.
In all the aforesaid cases the OPs have filed the objections on the maintenance of these complaints on the ground that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble NCDRC in III (2014) CPJ 120 (NC) Regional Institute of Cooperative Management Vs Naveen Kumar Chaudhary & others wherein it has been held that the educational institutions are not the service providers and the students did not come within the purview of the definition of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. In P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs Ellen Charitable Trust and Ors. it has been held by the Hon’ble 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.” On the basis of the aforesaid judgments it is contended by the OP No.1 that as these cases relate to the deficiency in service by the OPs, hence these cases are not maintainable and deserve to be dismissed with costs.
From the facts of the aforesaid cases, it is clear that these cases relate to the refund of fees also and as per the
-7-
aforesaid judgments it is abundantly clear that the OPs being educational institutions, are not service provider in a case involving fees etc. and therefore these complaints are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act in this Forum. Therefore, these complaints are liable to be dismissed at this stage itself. However, the Complainants can seek remedy before the appropriate Forum or Civil Court as per law.
ORDER
The complaints are dismissed.
The parties to bear their own costs.
A copy of the judgment shall be placed in Case No.240/13, 241/13, 242/13, 243/13 and 1067/13.
(Rajarshi Shukla) (Anju Awasthy) (Vijai Varma)
Member Member President
Dated: 24 April, 2015
