Delhi

West Delhi

CC/11/716

ASHISH THUKRAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHIKSHAPEETH - Opp.Party(s)

16 Sep 2016

ORDER

fCONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                                                Date of institution: 13.12.11

Case No.716/11                                                                                                                                                                Date of Order:16.9.16

In the Matter of

 

Sh.  Ashish Thukral,

R/o D-34, First Floor,

Tagore Garden Extn.,

New Delhi-110027.                                                                                         Complainant

 

VERSUS

Shikshapeeth College of Management & Technology,

16 Bindra Market,

Near Police Station, Tilak Nagar,

New Delhi-18.                                                                                   Opposite Party

 

ORDER

R.S. Bagri,President

            The present complaint is brought by Ashish Thukral, complainant against  Shikshapeeth College of Management & Technology, Opposite Party u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 for  seeking direction to the Opposite Party  to refund fee and pay  compensation. 

 

The brief facts necessary   for the disposal of the present complaint are that  Ashish Thukral took admission for persuing B.B.A. course   with Opposite Party by paying requisite fee.   The Opposite Party told the complainant that it was affiliated with Maharishi Dayanand University.  The complainant for arranging fee applied for  loan from the State Bank of India.  Which was declined  by them on the ground that the Opposite Party  is not a  recognized institute.   The complainant  asked the Opposite Party to supply and show letter of affiliation from Maharishi Dayanand University.   But the Opposite Party failed to provide the same.   On 27.11.11 vide letter No.SCMT/2011/AC/563 the Opposite Party struck off the name of the

-2-

complainant.  Hence the present complaint for direction to the Opposite Party to refund Rs.71000/- course fee  alongwith compensation Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and  litigation expenses Rs.21,000/-.

 

            After notice the Opposite Party filed reply to the complaint asserting that  there is no cause of action against them as the complainant has already settled  the dispute and as per settlement the Opposite Party has revoked the termination of the complainant.   He paid outstanding fee of Rs.20,000/-.   The Opposite Party has denied all the allegations of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

 

            The parties were asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit in support of their version.   The complainant filed affidavit dated  2.11.13 once again reiterating the stand taken in the complaint and controverting the allegations alleged by the Opposite Party in reply.   The Opposite Party  filed affidavit of Sh. Anuj Malhotra, dated 19.3.14 reiterating their stand taken in the reply.    The documents filed by the Opposite Party are  letters dated 14.1.12, 17.1.12, 6.4.11, 21.4.11, 27.1.11, 10.3.12 and 29.3.12 etc. and copy of admit card.   

 

We have heard the complainant and counsel of opposite party at length and have gone through the complaint ,reply, affidavits and documents submitted by the parties and   are of the opinion that the main controversy/ issue is “whether Ashish Thukral, complainant,  is consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and the opposite party is service provider”?

      These issues have been dealt in detail by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case reported as MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY VS SURJEET KAUR 2010 (11)Supreme Court Cases 159.  Wherein it is held that education is not a commodity. The educational institutionals are not service providers. Therefore the students are not consumers. Similar view is taken by another bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in special leave petition no22532/12 titled P.T.KOSHY& ANR VS ELLEN CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS decided on 9.8.12.  Similar view is taken by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition no 1684/2009 titled as REGISTRAR ,GGS INDERAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY VS MISS TANVI decided on 29.1.2015 ,in Revision Petition No 4335/14 titled as Mayank Tiwari vs  Fiitjee decided on 8.12.14, in Revision Petition No 3365/2006 titled FIITJEE VS

-3-

DR.(MRS) MINATHI RATH, in Revision Petition No 1805/2007 titled FITJEE VS B.B.POPLI, Revision Petition No 3496/2006 P.T.Education vs Dr MINATHI and in Revision Petition No 2660/2007  all decided on 14.11.11 by common order .   Similar view is also taken by Hon’ble  State Commission of Chandigarh in Appeal no 244/2014 titled M/s fiitjee ltd vs Mayank Tiwari decided on 23.9.14.

       Similar are the facts of the present case .The complainant  took admission with opposite parties for persuing B.B.A. course. The opposite parties are giving education. Therefore as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court,  Hon’ble National Commission and  Hon’ble State Commission of Chandigarh time and again education is not a commodity and the opposite party is not service provider and the  student is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.

      Therefore, complaint is not maintainable. Resultantly  the complaint is dismissed.

Order pronounced on :16.09.2016

 

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.

 

Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                               (URMILA GUPTA)                   (R.S.  BAGRI)

  MEMBER                                             MEMBER                               PRESIDENT