KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 33/2024

ORDER DATED: 07.06.2024

(Against the Order in I.A. 188/21 in C.C. 104/2021 of DCDRC, Ernakulam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN     : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

Jince James, S/o late James Alex Murickan, Chettayil House, Kurumulloor Post Office, Athirampuzha Village, Kottayam-686 632 now residing at Murickan House, Flat No. F3, Jewel Planet, Vytila-682 019, Ernakulam.

(By Advs. K. Vinod Kumar & Nithya S.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Shibu Paul, S/o Paulose, Arackudyil House, Mullankolli P.O., Pulpally, Wayanad-673 579.

2. Irine Maria Shibu, D/o Shibu Paul, Arackudyil House, Mullankolli P.O., Pulpally, Wayanad-673 579 represented by Power of Attorney Holder Shibu Paul.

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

This revision petition is filed by the opposite party in C.C. No. 104/2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (District Commission for short).  This revision is filed against an order dated 13.03.2024 of the District Commission in I.A. No. 188/2021.  The said petition was filed by the opposite party contending that the complaint was not maintainable before the District Commission for the reason that it pertains to educational services.  The contention is that, IELTS Coaching and Admission Consultancy for MBBS in Germany would fall outside the ambit of ‘service’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the Act for short).

2. The respondents who were the complainants before the District Commission are residents of Wayanad District.  According to them, they had seen an advertisement published by the revision petitioner claiming that he was having expertise and necessary licenses and permissions from authorities to arrange visa for medical education for students in Germany and other foreign countries.  The respondents saw the advertisement and approached the revision petitioner at his office at Ernakulam and discussed the terms and conditions for arranging medical education for the 2^nd respondent at Germany.  He agreed to arrange admission for her to study Medicine at Germany. 

3.  As demanded by him, the respondents paid Rs. 25,000/- on 21.11.2016 as registration fee, a further amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 30.11.2016, Rs. 20,000/- on 22.12.2016, Rs. 1,91,000/- on 31.03.2017 and Rs. 4,36,400/- on 05.04.2017.  The total amount thus paid by them was Rs. 7,72,400/-.  Later he arranged visa for the 2^nd respondent to go to Germany.  In Germany she was enrolled in a moderate substandard institute to study German language.  In order to continue the study of German language her student visa was extended from time to time for a period of 24 months.  According to the revision petitioner, she failed to obtain sufficient score in the examination conducted by the authorities and therefore she had to return to India spending her own funds.  The respondents therefore filed the complaint alleging that the revision petitioner had committed deception, fraud and breach of trust.  They demanded return of the amount of Rs. 7,72,400/- paid by them to the revision petitioner, Rs. 11,00,000/- remitted in the overseas expense account and the ticket charge of Rs. 80,000/-.  They also demanded an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- towards mental agony, pain and suffering caused to them. 

4.  On receipt of notice the revision petitioner entered appearance and filed version contending interalia that these complainants are not consumers coming within the definition of the Act.  The 1^st respondent is not the power of attorney holder of the 2^nd complainant and he has no authority to file the complaint.  It is contended that the revision petitioner had never offered to provide visa for the medical studies.  The revision petitioner had utilized a nominal amount as processing charge and the remaining amount collected from the respondents was utilized for various other purposes including flight charges, visa, tuition fee, price of study materials, expenses for 3 months’ accommodation etc.  It was for the reason that the respondent could not achieve the score as prescribed by the authorities she could not get admission for the medical course.  Therefore, the revision petitioner is not liable to compensate the respondents.  The complaint is yet to be tried, by adducing evidence.  It was in the above circumstances that I.A. No. 188/2021 was filed raising the question of maintainability of the complaint.  According to the revision petitioner, the 1^st respondent is not a consumer coming under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.  Further, St. George International Study Abroad and its partners are necessary parties to the complaint since it was to the said partnership firm that the amounts were paid by the 1^st respondent.  The 2^nd respondent was also taken to Germany.  The 1^st complainant being on the party array, it was contended that his continuance as a party amounted to misjoinder of parties. 

5.  The District Commission heard the respective counsel, considered the contentions and held that the complaint was maintainable.  It is against the said order that this revision is filed.  We have heard the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner.  It is contended that educational institutions do not provide any service in the nature of a service as defined under the Act.  Education is not a commodity as held by the Supreme Court and therefore, it is contended that the District Commission ought to have dismissed the complaint as not maintainable. 

6.  We have heard the counsel for the revision petitioner.  This is a case in which the respondents had parted with substantial sums of money relying on the assurance of the revision petitioner that the 2^nd respondent would be able to get admission to a Medical course at Germany.  We are not satisfied that the said activity would come within the scope of the expression ‘education’.  Admittedly, the revision petitioner does not provide any education or coaching to the students.  They are engaged in providing service as agents to facilitate and help in obtaining admission to the course conducted by other institutions.  Therefore, we are not satisfied that they are engaged in providing education.  It is necessary for evidence to be let in by both parties before it could be decided what the real nature of the transaction was.  At this stage of the proceedings we do not find anything to hold that the complaint is not maintainable as contended by the revision petitioner.  The District Commission has by a considered order found that the complaint was maintainable.  We find no reason to take a different view of the matter.  If after the evidence adduced it is found that there are materials to show that the 2^nd complainant was not a consumer the District Commission shall be at liberty to dismiss the complaint.  We do not find any error of jurisdiction or other infirmity in the order of the District Commission warranting interference with the same in revision.  In view of the above, this revision petition is dismissed.

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                 AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER

jb                                                                                            RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER