BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 343 dated 24.05.2018.                                                       Date of decision: 05.06.2018.

Dimple Dua (Minor) son of Sh. Baldev Raj, Resident of H. No.539/24, New Shiv Puri Road, Near Vishnu Puri, Street No.1, Ludhiana through his Guardian Baldev Raj father of the complainant.                                                                                                                                                        ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

Secred Heart Convent School, Bhattian, Ludhiana through the Principal of the School.

…..Opposite party 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH. VINOD GULATI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

For complainant            :         Sh. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate.

ORDER

PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT

1.                Complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) filed by complainant (minor) through his father by claiming that he is a student of 5^th class of OP school under admission No.2239. Complainant claims to studying in the said school for the last 3-4 years. Complainant was promoted on year to year basis and such promotion was given to him from 4^th class to 5^th class in April 2018. On asking of school administration, complainant deposited admission fee of Rs.3,875/- on 17.04.2018. Complainant attended his 5^th class from 16.04.2018 to 20.04.2018 and was marked present by the concerned teacher. On 20.04.2018, complainant was not allowed to sit in 5^th class by the school administration on the plea that he has not been promoted to 5^th class because he did not possess the requisite pass marks in 4^th class. On approaching the school administration by father of complainant, complainant was not allowed to sit in 5^th class despite request. Despite service of legal notice, nothing done and that is why this complaint filed for directions to OP to allow the complainant to sit in 5^th class because he has already deposited the admission fee of 5^th class.

2.                From the contents of the complaint as a whole along with supporting affidavit, it is made out that grievance of the complainant through his father is that he has not been allowed to sit in 5^th class despite getting deposited the annual fee charges of Rs.3,875/-. Even if the complainant may have been promoted to sit in 5^th class during period from 16.04.2018 to 20.04.2018, despite that promotion of the complainant from 4^th class to 5^th class certainly cannot be allowed unless the requisite pass marks obtained by the complainant in 4^th class. Complainant has been disclosed about the non obtaining of pass marks in 4^th class and that is why he has not been allowed to sit in 5^th class. In case the complaint admitted, then it will mean promotion of complainant to 5^th class despite the fact that he has not obtained the requisite pass marks in 4^th class. In such eventuality, complainant will gain undue benefit and as such, allowing of the complaint will mean giving latitude to complainant to sit in 5^th class as per his whims and fancies. That is not legally permissible at all and as such, complaint instead of projecting deficiency in service on partof OP is filed virtually with the sole object of abusing the process of law for getting a right, which has never accrued to complainant.

3.                Education is not a commodity for sale and as such, present consumer complaint is not maintainable because complainant is not a consumer within meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act. In case titled as IDP Education India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gaganpreet Singh bearing First Appeal No.59 of 2017 decided on 11.07.2017 by the Ist Addl. Bench of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, it has been held that educational institutes do not provide any kind of service, due to which in a matter of admission, fees etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency in service. Relying on law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court of the country in case titled as Maharishi Dayanand University Vs Surjeet Kaur 2010(2) CPC 696 (SC) and P.T. Koshy & another Vs Ellen Charitable Trust & others 2012(3) CPC 615, it has been held by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the above said case of IDP Education India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gaganpreet Singh that a student is neither a consumer and nor the educational institutions render any service and as such, consumer complaint is not maintainable. Ratio of these cases fully applicable to the facts of the present case, particularly when question involved in this case before us is as to whether complainant without obtaining the requisite pass marks in 4^th class entitled to promotion for 5^th class or not. That question certainly cannot be gone into in the proceedings of this consumer complaint, otherwise the schools will have no check on the nefarious designs of promotion seekers to next class automatically without fulfilling the requisite qualification of obtaining pass percentage marks in the previous class.

4.                Counsel for complainant has relied upon ratio of cases titled Controller, Vinayak Mission Den. Col. & another Vs Geetika Khare 2010 (3) CPC 199 (SC); Aashirwad Health & Education Trust and another Vs S.L.M. Ahmed and others 2013 (2) CPC 323 (NC); HCMI Education Vs Narendra Pal Singh 2013 (3) CPC 64 (NC) and Buddisht Mission Dental College & Hospital Vs Bhupesh Khurana and others 2009(1) CPC 604 (SC) for arguing that the present complaint is maintainable. That submission of counsel for complainant certainly has no force because ratio of these cases applicable as and when admission given by an unrecognized institute in professional courses or the admission granted in unapproved courses after giving wide publicity as if requisite licenses from the approved authority has been obtained. That is not the position in the case before us because OP school is a recognized school even as per case of the complainant and promotion to next class contemplated to be granted by it by keeping in view  the ell recognized principle of promoting only those students, who has obtained requisite pass marks. So this complaint virtually is filed for abusing process of law for gaining a relief to which complainant is not entitled actually. Otherwise also complainant is not a consumer in view of above cited law and as such, this consumer complaint is not maintainable.

5.                As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed at admission stage itself. Copies of order be supplied to complainant free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                    (Vinod Gulati)                                            (G.K. Dhir)

                    Member                                            President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:05.06.2018.

Gobind Ram.