IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC /17/2015.

 Date of Filing:              04.02.2015                                            Date of Final Order: 22.09.2015.

Complainant: Tanuja Ghosh, D/O Monoj Kumar Ghosh,

                        Vill & P.O. Muniadihi, P.S. Burwan, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin No. 742161.

-Vs-

Opposite Party: Sudip Chatterjee, C.E.O, G.T. Computer & Networking Engineering College,

                         68, Swarnamoyee Road, P.O. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742101.

                       Present:     Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya …………………….President.                           

                                         Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.           

                                         Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member

FINAL ORDER

Smt. Pranati Ali, Presiding Member.

Brief fact of the complainant’s case No. 17/2015 u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 is that the complainant, Tanuja Ghosh, is a student of the OP /Sudip Chatterjee, C.E.O, G.T Computer & Networking Engineering College, Berhampore Murshidabad of  B. Sc, Hardware Networking course. According to the complainant, she was attracted by the advertisement of the OP and took admission in that course by depositing a sum of Rs.1, 50,000/- as an entire course free against money receipt, but after completion of 2 semesters OP kept mum regarding rest 4 semesters. Without getting any appropriate reply from the OP, the complainant directly made a connection with the affiliated authority of the OP Institute, Mahatma Gandhi University at Meghalaya and became astonished to know that due to non-payment of rest course fees by the OP, the university suspended the course. Then the complainant sent an Advocate’s notice to the OP as an alternative step, but the OP did not pay any heed to the matter. At last, he came to this Forum with a prayer that the OP be directed to refund the full course amount of Rs.1, 50,000/- along with a sum of Rs.3, 00,000/- as compensation.

On the other hand, the OP/Sudip Chatterjee, C.E.O, G.T. Computer & Networking Engineering College, is absent in this case though notice was duly served. So, this proceeding runs ex parte.

Now this Forum is to consider as to whether the complainant is a consumer as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and whether the Opposite Party is guilty of deficiency in service and whether the complainant can be awarded relief as prayed for.

                                                       Decision with reasons.

It is indeed, mandated by the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and it has meanwhile been settled by catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commissions that whenever a person is approaching the jurisdiction of this Forum in order to have any relief, he/she is under the obligation to prove himself/herself to be a consumer. In this case we observed that the complainant is a student of the OP by paying a course fee,  which apparently seems that for this reason the complainant will fall within the definition of “Consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act, In this regard the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Regional Institute of Co-operation Management Vs. Naveen Kumar Chowdhury reported in 2014(3) CPR 152(NC) has been pleased to hold from the earlier judgment of the Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prosad Sinha, that statutory Board does not provide any service in the sense , the term is used in the Act and examinee is not a consumer. It was held that Board is not a service provider. In addition the Apex Court agreed with another judgment of the case of Maharshi Dayananda University Vs. Surajeet Kour , 2010(4) SCC 159  2010(2) C.P.C. 696 SC, wherein the Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education   is not  commodity . Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in the matter of admission, fees etc. There cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matter cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, the complainants shall have liberty to seek their grievances before the proper forum or civil court, as per law. Therefore, in view, of ratio decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court of the Land there cannot be any hesitation to hold that the complainant as a student is not a consumer and for that reason he is not entitled to get relief as he prayed for.

On the basis of above finding, our considered view is that no need to go into the details of the merit of this particular case.  Hence,

                                               Ordered

that the Consumer Complaint No. 17/2015 be and the same is disposed of being dismissed, without any order as to cost.

Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post  to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.