DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW

CASE No.32of 2013

       Manu Rani Gupta, aged about 35 yrs.,

       R/o 532K/23, Near Pandey Tola Tubewell,

       Aliganj, Lucknow.

                                                                    ……Complainant

Versus

                 1. Director,

                   Saroj Institute of Technology & Management,

                   11 K.M.S. Stone, Ahimamau, Arjunganj,

                   Sultanpur Road, Lucknow.

                2.  Registrar,

                   Gautam Budh Technical University,

                   (U.P.T.U.), Sitapur Road

                   Lucknow.               

                                                                               .......Opp. Parties

Present:-

Sri Vijai Varma, President.

Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.

Sri Rajarshi Shukla, Member.

ORDER

          This is a complaint filed by the Complainant for refund of fees of Rs.80,000.00 and also for compensation etc. against the OP No.1 Director, Saroj Institute of Technology and Management and OP No.2 Registrar, Gautam Budh Technical University.

          In this complaint the OP No.1 has filed a preliminary objection that this case is not maintainable in this Forum as the Hon’ble NCDRC and Hon’ble State Commission have passed orders that in the matter of admission fees etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency in service, therefore such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum and in view of those judgments it is argued by the learned Counsel for the OP No.1 that this case is not maintainable in this Forum.

-2-

          The complaint discloses that it is a case of refund of fees of Rs.80,000.00 filed by the Complainant against the OPs.                  In this regard, the OP No.1 has cited 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 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 OPs 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. The complaint is dismissed. However, the

-3-

Complainant can seek remedy before the appropriate Forum or Civil Court as per law.

          Consign.

(Rajarshi Shukla)           (Anju Awasthy)        (Vijai Varma)

       Member                         Member                         President

   Dated:     30April, 2015