Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/421/2015

Bhagwant University Through Sub Registrar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Suresh Jat s/o Prahlad Jat - Opp.Party(s)

Vasim Ahamad

16 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 421 /2015

 

Bhagwant University,Sikar Road, Ajmer through Dy.Registrar, Sikar Road,Ajmer.

Vs.

 

Suresh Jat s/o Prahalad Jat r/o House No. 17, Civil Line, Tonk Rajasthan & ors.

 

 

Date of Order 16.5.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr.Wasim Ahmed Qureshi counsel for the appellant

Mr. Naveen Kumar Sharma counsel for the respondents

 

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 6.1.2015 of the District Consumer Forum, Ajmer whereby the claim has been allowed against the appellant.

 

The only contention of the appellant is that Consumer Forums have no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute as regard to students as they are not consumers and university is not rendering any service to its students.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. The respondent has not attended the classes hence, as per circular of UGC the fee amount should have been refunded after deduction of Rs. 1000/- processing fees.

 

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment.

 

The only objection of the appellant is as regard to jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum treating the dispute in hand.

3

 

The Forum below has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported in III (2009) CPJ 33 (NC) Sehgal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh where the National Commission has ordered for refund of the fee for medical coaching as per public notice issued by the UGC but no objection as regard to jurisdiction was raised before the National Commission and was not decided.

 

The appellant has rightly relied upon (2010) 11 SCC 159 Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur where after relying the judgment of Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha (2009 ) 8 SCC 483, the apex court has held that Board is not a 'service provider' and student is not a 'consumer' . Relying on Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur the apex court in P.T.Koshy & anr. Vs. Elien Charitable Trust & ors. Civil Appeal No. 22532/2012 order passed on 9.8.2012 has held as under:

 

“ In view of the judgment of this court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 wherein this court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission,

4

 

 

fees etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act,1986.”

 

The appellant has further rightly relied on judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 638/2014 Regional Institute of Cooperative Management Vs. Naveen Kumar Chaudhary decided on 2.5.2014 where it was held that neither the student fell within the definition of 'consumer' nor the opposite party fell within the definition of 'service provider' and consumer complaint is not maintainable.

 

In view of the above the judgment passed by the Forum below is liable to be set aside. The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 6.1.2015 passed by the District Forum,Ajmer is set aside.

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm