Haryana

Panchkula

CC/287/2015

ANU MEHTA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SWAMI DEVI DAYAL HI-TECH EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY(REGD) & OTHERS. - Opp.Party(s)

R.S.ATTRI.

04 Jan 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.                            

                                                             

Consumer Complaint No	:	287 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	22.12.2015
Date of Decision	:	04.01.2016

                                                                                          

Anu Mehta aged 18 years D/o Sh.Naresh Mehta, R/o village Barwala, Tehsil and Distt. Panchkula.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1.       Swami Devi Dayal Hi-Tech Educational Academy (Regd), Village Golpura, Tehsil Barwala, Distt. Panchkula through its Managing Director Shi Moti Lal Jindal.

2.       Swami Devi Dayal Hi-Tech Educational Academy (Regd), Village Golpura, Tehsil Barwala, Distt. Panchkula through its Principal Smt.Saroj.

3.       Sh.Y.C.Chopra, Chairman, Swami Devi Dayal Hi-Tech Educational Academy (Regd), Village Golpura, Tehsil Barwala, Distt. Panchkula.

4.       Ms.Shilpi, Secretary, Swami Devi Dayal Hi-Tech Educational Academy (Regd), Village Golpura, Tehsil Barwala, Distt. Panchkula.

 

                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     None for the complainant.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. Today the case was fixed for consideration on the admissibility of the complaint.
2. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops with the averments that she passed 10+2 class after securing 72% marks in the examination. In order to get higher education, the complainant approached the Ops to get admission in Engineering in Nursing and the Ops instructed her to deposit Rs.35,000/- in the account of the Ops for admission in the B.Sc. (Nursing of 1^st year). The uncle of the complainant namely Sh.Tarsem Mehta transferred the amount of Rs.35,000/- in the account of Ops. At the time of admission, the Ops took all the original certificates of the complainant with them. Thereafter, the complainant was got admitted and she started attending the classes. During the period of two months, the Ops told the complainant that the counseling was yet to be made and the complainant is an intelligent girl, therefore, her admission has already been made but there were some formalities to be done. The Ops further told the complainant that some officials have to come from Rohtak and they would take the counseling of the students but the complainant need not worry about the same and the complainant has to pay Rs.32,000/- again in the account of the Ops. As per instruction of Ops, the uncle of the complainant transferred the amount of Rs.32,000/- to the account of the Ops. Thereafter, some instructors from Rohtak came in the Institute and counseling was done. In the counseling, the complainant was told that her name was not enlisted in the counseling and the name of another student was approved but the Ops further assured that the complainant was an intelligent girl, therefore, she has to attend the classes regularly but her attendance would not be marked rather they would get the engineering of the complainant completed at their own level or would manage the seat when any student leave the seat. The complainant requested the Ops that they have assured to give her a seat in the B.Sc Nursing in the 1^st year after verifying all the documents/mark sheets, therefore, the complainant did not make any application to other Institute otherwise, her academic year would be ruined but to no avail. Due to that act of Ops, the academic year of the complainant has been ruined. The complainant further came to know that the Ops have sold the seat to a student for a more amount in place of the complainant and the said student had only 42% marks in her 10+2 examination. This act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant appeared on 25.12.2015 and 28.12.2015 but thereafter neither the complainant nor the learned counsel appeared.
4. However, education is not a commodity. Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fee etc, there cannot be a question of deficiency in service. In this regard reliance can be placed on a case titled P.T.Koshy & Anr Versus Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held:-

“that in view of the judgment of this Court in Maharashi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 = 2010 (2)CPC 696 SC 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, fee etc, there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”

5. The above law is followed by our Hon’ble State Commission in First Appeal No.360 of 2013 titled as Anupama College of Engineering Vs. Gulshan Kumar and others decided on 12.07.2013.
6. The main question for consideration is whether the complainant/student is a ‘consumer’ or not. The answer to this is in the negative.
7. In a recent judgment in Civil Appeal No.697 of 2014, titled as Indian Institute of Bank & Finance (IIBF) Vs. Mukul Srivastava dated 17.01.2014, passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also referred to the judgments reported in Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, 2009 (8) SCC 483, Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159 and Jagmitter Sain Bhagat Vs. Director, Health Services Haryana & Ors, 2013 (10) SCC 136, holding that the student, under such circumstances, is not a ‘consumer’.
8. In view of the above position of law, the complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is liberty to approach civil court, as per law, for redressal of her grievance.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of costs.  File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

04.01.2016       S.P.ATTRI          ANITA KAPOOR        DHARAM PAL

                         MEMBER           MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

    

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT