Delhi

StateCommission

FA/1197/2013

G.G.S.I. UNIVERSITY - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHASHI - Opp.Party(s)

06 Feb 2020

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision:06.02.2020

First Appeal No. 1197/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 18.05.2013 passed in complaint case No. 600/2007 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North), Tis Hazari, Delhi)

In the matter of:

 

          The Registrar,

Guru Gobind Singh University (GGSIPU),

Sector-16-C, Dwarka Campus,

New Delhi                                                                       .....Appellant

 

 

Versus

 

 

1. Kumari Shashi,

D/o. Sh. Prem Chand,

R/o. A-42, P-2, Paschim Puri,

•  

 

2. The Principal,

Gita Ratan Institute of Advance Studies,

Rohini, Sector-7, Delhi                    …Respondents

           

CORAM

 

Ms. Salma Noor, Presiding Member

 

1.       Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?             

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Salma Noor:  Presiding Member

 

1. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 18.05.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North), Tis Hazari, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 600/2007 titled as Kumari Shashi vs. The Vice-Chancellor, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University whereby the complaint of the respondent No.1/complainant is allowed and the District Forum has directed appellant/OP No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.38,000/- alongwith interest @6% p.a. from the date of deposit till the payment and also awarded Rs.2,000/- towards costs.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred as are arrayed in the complaint case.
3. Facts of the case are that the complaint was filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act before the District Forum alleging that the complainant took admission in the B.Ed. of OP university for the academic session of 2006-07 on 17.06.2006 and had deposited Rs.38,000/- as fee. The admission was conditional that in case the complainant did not fulfill the minimum criteria as prescribed by the OP university, her admission would be cancelled. Complainant was allotted the institute of OP No.2 i.e. Gita Ratan Institute of Advanced Studies, Rohini, Sector-7, Delhi. Complainant started attending the classes from 01.08.2006. It was alleged that after attending two or three classes the aforesaid institute refused permission to the complainant to attend the classes. It was alleged that complainant approached OP No.1 i.e. Guru Gobind Institute and gave a representation, but OP No.1 did not pay any heed to it.
4. Complainant also sent a legal notice dated 06.01.2007 to the both the OPs, but none of the OPs responded to the said notice nor complied with the said notice.
5.  Alleging deficiency in service, complainant has filed the complaint before the District Forum praying therein that the OPs be directed to allow the respondent No.1/complainant to attend the classes or to refund the fees of Rs.38,000/- deposited by her with interest @25% p.a.
6. The complaint was opposed by the OPs by filing written statement. It was not disputed by the university that complainant was given provisional admission to B.Ed. course on 17.06.2006 and deposited Rs.38,000/- with it. However, it was stated that on verification of documents it was found that the complainant was ineligible for admission in B.Ed course, as per Information Bulletin of OP university the eligibility criteria was 50% in any two school subjects at graduate level. It was alleged that complainant had taken admission in reserved category (SC) and she was eligible for one teaching subject i.e. Hindi but ineligible for second teaching subject. It was alleged that complainant had scored only 40% marks in her two subsidiary subjects in English and Economics hence, she was not eligible for admission in B.Ed courses of OP university, therefore, her provisional admission was not approved. It was further stated that as complainant had failed to score 40% marks in the qualifying examination, her fee automatically stood forfeited, therefore she is not entitled for relief claimed by her.
7. Evidence by way of affidavit filed by the complainant as well as OP university reiterating the same facts as stated above.
8. Ld. District Forum after going through the records and considering the evidence filed by the parties reached to a conclusion that OPs are liable to refund the amount of Rs.38,000/- deposited by the complainant and directed the OP No.1 and 2 jointly and severally, to refund the amount of Rs.38,000/- to the complainant with simple interest @6% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment.
9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Ld. District Forum, OP No.1 university has filed the present appeal praying for setting aside the order of the Ld. District Forum.
10. No one appeared on behalf of appellant despite awaiting at the time of arguments. I have heard the arguments of the father of the complainant and perused the record.
11. The main contention of the appellant is that the Ld. District Forum has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as the present case is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act. It is contended that even on merits, the order is erroneous.
12. There is no dispute between the parties that, present is a case of refund of the fees and there are judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it has been held that the Educational Institutions i.e. Universities/Board are not providing any kind of service rather they perform the statutory duties.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Maharishi Dayanand Univeristy vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (2) CPC 696 SC.; Bihar School Examination Board vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha 2010 (1) CLT 255 (SC) as well as P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC) has held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions imparting education 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.
14. The Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1684/2009 titled as Registrar Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University vs. Tanvi decided on 29.01.2015 also held that a student is not a ‘consumer’. Relying upon the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble National Commission has also held that the educational institutions are not providing any kind of service.
15. Therefore, in matter of admission, fee etc, there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer For a under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Respondent No.1/complainant is seeking refund of fee from appellant in such case there is no question of deficiency of service as has been discussed above as such the Ld. District Forum has no jurisdiction to deal with the case.
16. The Hon’ble National Commission in Complaint Case No. 261/2012 titled as Manu Solanki & Ors. vs. Vinayka Mission University passed on 20.01.2020 held that

“The Institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport, etc. except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”

17. In view of the finding on jurisdiction, I am not discussing the case on merits in order to avoid any prejudice to the parties.
18. Accordingly, present appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated      18.05.2013 passed in complaint case No. 600/2007 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North), Tis Hazari, Delhi is set aside. There is no order as to costs.
19. The complainant shall be at liberty to seek her grievance before the appropriate Forum/Civil Court in accordance with law. The complainant can seek help for condonation of delay in accordance with law laid down in Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute 1995 (3) SCC 583.
20. Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
21. FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

(Salma Noor)

                                                                         Presiding Member

                    

sk