KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 117/2016
JUDGMENT DATED:01/07/2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 151/2013 of DCDRC, Malappuram)
PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES:
- Dr.Swapna Sreekumar, Principal, Moulana College of Pharmacy, Angadipuram.P.O., Malappuram District.
- Managing Director, Moulana Collage of Pharmacy, Angadipuram.P.O., Malappuram District.
(By Adv. A.Abdul Kharim & Adv.Narayan.R)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Suhali.K., S/o.Kuttyali, Kolleri House, Payyanadu.P.O., Malappuram District.
JUDGMENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC.151/2013 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram [District Commission in short].
2. On 20/01/2016 the District Commission had allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant and to return back the Transfer Certificate and documents. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order this appeal has been filed.
3. The complainant had availed admission for the B pharm course run by the opposite parties in the management quota. But the complainant discontinued the course and later he filed an application for the return of his documents such as TC, SSLC and refund of the amount remitted. The request was disallowed. He had sought for a direction to the opposite parties for the return of the certificates. He had also sought for compensation for Rs.1,00,000/- towards the mental agony and inconvenience caused to him on account of the act of the opposite party in not returning the certificates.
4. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version with the following contentions. The complaint is not maintainable before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The prospectus pertaining to the course was already supplied to the complainant. The courses are being conducted in accordance with the stipulations in the prospectus. The complainant had already executed a consent letter to the administrator of the opposite parties that he shall abide with the conditions in the prospectus. The complainant never disclosed his desire to join for B.A.graduation course. The opposite party had sent a reply notice to the complainant. But the complainant did not comply with the requirements in getting back the documents. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the opposite parties had sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. On the side the complainant PW1 was examined Ext.A1 to A6 were marked. 1st opposite party was examined as DW1 and Ext.B1 to B9 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.
6. In the appeal memorandum the following grounds are raised. The District Commission ought to have found that the complaint is not maintainable as the dispute is in respect of a student and the educational policies. The District Commission had failed to address the settled legal position as laid down in this regard. The District Commission ought to have dismissed the complaint as the National Commission and State Commission had already ruled that the policy matters could not be the subject matter of a complaint before the Consumer Forum. The District Commission had granted the relief on humanitarian considerations. The appellant had sought for the dismissal of the complainant.
7. Notice issued by this Commission was duely served on the respondent but he remained absent.
8. The records of the District Commission were called for. Heard the counsel for the appellant. Perused the records.
9. The complainant had sworn before the District Commission as PW1 in support of the complainant. Ext.A1 is the notice issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant in response to the application filed by the complainant for the allotment of management seat for B.Pharm course. Ext.A2 is the notification issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant in which it is averred that in case the complainant intends to discontinue the course he is liable to pay liquidated damages for Rs.2,25,000/- and then only he can get back the TC . Ext.A3 is the copy of the letter dated 07/08/2012 issued by the complainant to the opposite parties for the return of the certificates as he was not interested to continue the course. Ext.A4 is the copy of the lawyer notice issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party requesting for the return of the SSLC Book and other connected certificates. Ext.A5 is the receipt evidencing the payment of fees by the complainant for BA graduation by way of distance education. The 1st opposite party had testified as DW1. Ext.B1 is the copy of the agreement executed by the opposite party and Kerala State Government represented by its Joint Secretary. Ext.B3 is the application submitted by the complainant seeking admission for B.Pharm course run by the opposite parties. Ext.B4 is the letter issued by the complainant requesting the opposite party to admit him for B.pharm course. Ext.B5 is the detention certificate pertaining to the complainant as he had no adequate attendance during the first year so as to secure eligibility to appear for the examination. Ext.B6 is the lawyer notice dated 25.09.2012 issued on behalf of the complainant. Ext.B7 is the letter issued by the opposite party. Ext.B8 is the notification issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant with respect to the inadequacy of attendance. Ext.B9 is the prospectus.
9. The evidence adduced would establish that the opposite parties were conducting the Course as per the guidelines issued by the Director of Medical Education. The course was approved by A.I.C.T.E, Government of Kerala and affiliated to KUHS University. But the District Commission did not consider the core legal issue involved in this case. In “Manu Solanki Vs. Vinayaka Mission University and others” the National Commission had settled the legal issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to deal with the disputes pertaining to the education institution. It was declared in categorical terms that students do not come within the definition of “consumer” as per the provisions contained in the Consumer Protection Act. It also stipulated that imparting education is not a service as per the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant had availed admission in the management quota. He had also executed a consent letter expressing his readiness to pay requisite damages in the event of discontinuing the education. The opposite parties had only acted in accordance with the stipulation contained in the consent letter issued by the complainant. The District Commission had allowed the complaint on humanitarian grounds. Imparting education could not be treated as service as per the Consumer Protection Act and students are not consumers as per the dictum laid down by the National Commission in Manu Solanki case. By ignoring this settled legal position the District Commission had allowed the complaint on humanitarian grounds. The order passed by the District Commission is against the settled legal position hence we find that the appellants are entitled to succeed and the order under challenge is liable to be reversed.
In the result the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the District Commission is set aside. CC.151/2013 on the file of the District Commission, Malappuram is dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs. Appellant is allowed to get the refund of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand ), being the statutory deposit and Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand )deposited before this Commission as per IA.229/2016 for obtaining stay on proper acknowledgement.
AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
