This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant.
In a pith and marrow the complainant’s case is that opposite parties being a venture of “Shelter” is a Education Society having its venue at 3, B.Bhaduri Sarani, Bhadreswar, dist.-Hooghly, having www.shelter92.org) for propagating the education course B.ED(Spl) Education (Mental Retardation) course for the year 2015-2017. The opposite party No.1 is the Principal and Secretary, opposite party No.2 is the President and opposite party No.3 is the Working President of “Shelter. Complainant after going through the above website of the opposite parties she took admission in the B.Ed(Spl) MR Course for two years terms and paid Rs.1,15,000/- plus Rs.500/- for prospectus and application form vide receipt No.1045 & 953 dated 15.7.2015 and 10.6.2015 respectively.
The course was meant for undertaking course of training and education earmarked to mentally retarded students from VI to VIII as per F. No.18-10/2015 NCTE/N & S/ Part-III 29575 dated 25.5.2016 as against clarification of notification dated 23.8.2010, 29.7.2011 & 12.11.2014. But it was highlighted by the Principal-cum-Secretary and Managing Committee of Shelter that the course is applicable for imparting education to the students of class-I to XII instead of VI to VIII and on completion of said course complainant will be able to attend level examination of State and Central Govt. school (Primary to Higher Secondary). The complainant states that the opposite parties have misguided and misleaded to the students by suppressing the guideline of Govt. of India in the department of Rehabilitisation Council of India (RCI) with malafide intention. The State Government (W.B.) has also approved the course as stated herein is also false and fabricated one.
That the education matter is listed in the concurrent list. Neither State nor Union of India can announce such matter unilaterally, the Principal and Managing Committee of the Shelter has willfully misleaded the complainant with malafide intention for their gainful business for such unapproved course declared by RCI. That while the matter was enquired by the complainant and complainant was badly handled with inhuman way mentally and local police took no steps for such illegal course. The Principal and Managing Committee also kept themselves aloof from the total scene without taking proper redressal of the students grievances.
That the Govt. of India RCI had communicated the State Government in the year 2010-2011 vide their F. No.18-10/2015 NCTE/N & S/ Part-III 29575 dated 25.5.2016 that the course is meant for the students to teach from Class-VI to VIII while the clarification was sought for in the year 2016. The opposite parties did not care the Govt. of India’s order or clarification. They have misleaded and deprived the complainant with malafide intention and for which complainant sustained injury both mentally, physically and lost two important years as education year.
Finding no other alternative the complainant has compelled to file this case before this Forum and has prayed for direction upon the opposite parties to pay Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation along with interest to the complainant and also to pay litigation cost.
The opposite parties contested the case by filing a written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against them. These opposite parties state that SHELTER is a registered society registered under the Society’s Registration Act as well as Persons with Disability Act. Since 2014-2015 SHELTER has been running B-Ed. Special Education (Mental Retardation) Course in regular mode under affiliation of Burdwan University which was initially obtained on 17.2.2014 and subsequently renewed on 5.5.2015. As running of any course of Special Education requires recognition of Rehabilitation Council of India, SHELTER obtained such R.C.I. Recognition on 20.4.2015 and also obtained “No Objection” from Govt. of West Bengal for running the said course. The said course was running successfully since the inception without any stain and the first batch of students for the Academic year 2014-2015 completed their examination and passed out with good marks.
That the complainant voluntarily took admission in the said course on 15.7.2015 and the course started w.e.f. 31.7.2015. During her classes she never raised any question regarding the mode and manner of the said course nor made any complaint against any person attached with the institution including the opposite parties in any manner. The said course was running successfully in SHELTER until suddenly the Govt. of West Bengal in their notification for State Level Selection Test for Recruitment of Assistant Teachers, 2016 for Classes IX to XII vide CSSC Notification No.138/0117(6602)/CSSC/ESTT/2016 dated 16.2.2016 notified that B.Ed. Special Education has not been included in the eligibility criteria as Trained Teacher for sitting in the said selection test which created hue and cry to all the students undergoing B.Ed. Special Education throughout West Bengal. It is needless to mention that the opposite parties herein had no prior intimation or knowledge neither about the said notification nor control over the said notification. Several issues arose after coming into effect of the said notification, some of which are subjudice in various courts of law.
That immediately after coming into effect of the said notification, the opposite party No.1, as Chairperson of RCI-ZCC (Eastern Zone) and as Secretary, SHELTER made a representation before the Member Secretary, RCI, New Delhi with a prayer for taking suitable steps to mobilize NCTE for proper implementation of MOU considering the present situation and to advise the Govt. of West Bengal to reconsider their notification in favour of B.Ed. Special Education students in the light of the Right to Education Act. The Managing Committee of SHELTER reduced the course fee for the year 2015-2017 Batch to Rs.80,000/-. Inspite of that on 5.12.2016 some of the students including complainant entered into the room of Vice Principal and abused her with filthy languages and also heckled her. Thereafter complainant lodged false complaint against the managing committee of SHELTER before the local P.S. and before the Chairman of Bhadreshwar Municipality and SDO, Chandannagar on false, concocted and manufactured story.
That on 10.12.2016 a joint meeting was convened wherein eight members from the Managing Committee of SHELTER, ten interested students and two willing guardians were present. In the said meeting seven students supported by two guardians admitted the fact that because of new Circular of School Education, Govt. of W.B. the value of their degree has been diminished over which SHELTER had no control. A minute of the said meeting was prepared in presence of all the participants and the same was signed by the Secretary SHELTER. In such scenario, w.e.f. 07.12.2016 the complainant without giving any prior notice information to the SHELTER stopped coming to SHELTER and pursuing her said course at her own choice and volition.
Thereafter the complainant issued a purported legal notice dated 21.12.2016 through her Advocate calling upon the opposite party No.1 to pay compensation on some false, fake and concocted story although she stopped pursuing the said course since long. After receiving of the said legal notice the opposite party No.1 through his Advocate sent a reply letter dated 4.1.2017.
That in such circumstances to put unlawful pressure upon the opposite parties the complainant has instituted this false and frivolous case against the opposite parties. Thus, these opposite parties have prayed before this Forum to dismiss the case with cost.
Upon the above pleadings following points have been framed for determination.
- Whether the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case?
- Whether petitioner is entitled to have the amount as claimed for ?
- To what other relief, if any is the petitioner entitled?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1
From the materials on record it transpires that the complainant is/was a student and the opposite parties being a venture of Shelter (Education Society).
Now it is the first and foremost duty upon the complainant to satisfy this Forum whether complainant being a trainee student is a consumer or not.
In the complaint in Paragraph No.1 the complainant has described herself only that she is/was a student and in Paragraph No.2 of complaint complainant described about opposite parties, but from the contents of complaint itself, it does not focus as to how complainant being a trainee student is a consumer to the opposite parties. Again it may be noted that in her examination in chief complainant invoked Sections-2r(1)(ii) &(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and highlighted one decision in the case of Sushant Yubaraj Rode Vs. Shri Ramdeobaba Engineering College, 1993(iii) CFR 624 (as appearing from the affidavit in chief of the complainant).
In brief note of argument of the complainant it has been described as under “……….As per C.P. Act, 1986 the provision xvi of this act is as follows:- The student is a consumer of service of educational institute……..”. In examination in chief and in brief note of argument complainant has mentioned the aforesaid decision.
It may be noted that this Forum finds nothing head or tail of the provision xvi of the C.P. Act, 1986. Actually what complainant wants to express by highlighting Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the provision xvi.
Further it may be noted that Section-2(i) runs as follows:- “goods” means goods as defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (3 of 1930). Section-2(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986 “Service” defined as under:- “Service” means of any description which is made available to potential [users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of] facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, [housing construction,] entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”.
Upon reading Sections-2(o) and 2(i) of the C.P. Act, 1986 obviously it can be said that imparting training courses for special educations do not come under periphery of ‘goods’ as defined U/s.2(i) of the C.P. Act or ‘service’ as defined U/s. 2(o) of the said Act.
Ld. Counsel appearing for the complainant in fact, has failed to point out as to how the decision mentioned above bunking upon by the complainant has applicability in respect of the present case.
This Forum finds force and spirit in the submissions of Ld. Counsel appearing for the opposite parties that the complainant does not come under the purview of ‘consumer’ as defined and explained in the C.P. Act, 1986.
Further it may be noted that though complainant in her affidavit in chief has quoted Sections-2r(1) (ii) & 2r(1)(iv) of the C.P. Act, 1986, but we when go through the said provisions, we cannot say that those provisions are attracting upon the case of complainant, because in order to attract such sections we should keep in mind the definition of ‘service’ as provided in Section-2(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986, but to the mind of this Forum such provisions are not attracting so far in relation to the factual aspects of the complainant’s case.
Ld. Counsel appearing for the opposite parties also highlighted another crucial point that involving Private Educational Institutions where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that students are not consumers and as such cases are not brought before the Consumer Forum. According to said Ld. Counsel the students will not have any other option, but to approach the Civil Court, but here the complainant knowing fully well about the periphery, ambit including jurisdiction and scope of this Forum initiated this case wrongly and in all fairness this complaint of the complainant cannot stand at all on merit and as much as complainant being a trainee student cannot be termed as consumer in any stretch of imagination.
Regard being had upon the submissions of Ld. Counsel appearing for the respective sides and in view of the above discussion, first of all it may be noted that admitting and attending in any Private Educational Institution only to have training course whatsoever only indicates that the students have joined in that institution only to have gather special knowledge on the subject in question and in no way it can be said that the students are learning and gathering such knowledge being consumer. Rather it can be said that by any stretch of imagination we cannot stamp the students as consumers to any Private Educational Institution.
It is an admitted position that students may have so many grievances, many untold facts to be divulged and ventilated, but those may be put in appropriate forum, but the mind of this Forum. That this is not the proper forum (Consumer Forum)to have any relief whatsoever and this Forum is of the view that said relief is lying Civil Court or elsewhere.
In view of the above discussion this Forum is of the opinion that the complainant is not a consumer to the opposite parties and thus, this point is answered in negative.
Point No.2 to 4:
It will not be out of place to mention that in view of elaborate discussion made hereinabove further discussion on the above noted points appears to be redundant. Thus, these points are disposed of accordingly.
In view of the above discussion all the points are disposed of.
The instant case is liable to be dismissed on contest. Hence, it is,
Ordered
that the complaint case being No.35/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the opposite parties, but without any cost.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
