Haryana

Panchkula

CC/21/2022

ANIUL HUDA ZAIDI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SWAMI DEVI DYAL LAW COLLEGE. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

13 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	21 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	24.01.2022
Date of Decision	:	13.09.2022

 

 

Ainul Huda Zaidi daughter of Shri Babban Zaidi, resident of House No.803, Sector-2, Panchkula.

           ….Complainant

 

Versus

Swami Devi Dyal Law College, Village Golpura, Tehsil Barwala, District Panchkula, Haryana through its authorized signatory.

….Opposite Party

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:   Sh.Babban Zaidi, Authorised representative of the complainant. 

                        OP already proceeded ex-parte vide order dated                             21.03.2022. 

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant alongwith her father visited the Swami Devi Dyal Law College, Village Golpura, Tehsil Barwala, District Panchkula(hereinafter referred to as OP) to inquire about the formalities etc. relating to  admission. The officials of the OP asked the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.2,000/- as  refundable security, which was deposited vide receipt no.49151 dated 03.09.2021 with the OP. After receipt of the said amount, the official of the OP informed the complainant that she did not need to attend the regular classes as the OP itself would complete the attendance of the complainant as like other students and the complainant had to appear in the annual examination. The complainant was further informed that the OP was having tie ups with the University officials.  The complainant suspected the said version of the official of the OP and accordingly, decided not to take admission with the OP and requested the OP to refund the amount paid by her. The official of the OP assured the complainant that the said amount would be refunded to her within a month but the same was not refunded to her. After waiting sufficient time, the complainant visited the OP to make request for refund of deposited amount but request was declined.  It is alleged that a written request was submitted with the OP on 03.09.2021 followed by legal notice dated 08.12.2021 but in vain. Due to the act and conduct of the OP, the complainant has suffered physical harassment, mental agony and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Notice was issued to the OP through registered post, which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to OP; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OP, it was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 21.03.2022.

3.             To prove the case, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

4.             We have heard the authorized representative of the complainant and gone through the entire record available on file, carefully and minutely.

5.             Evidently, a sum of Rs.2,000/- was deposited on 03.09.2021 vide receipt(Annexure C-1). The application given by the complainant requesting for the refund of the said amount on 03.09.2021 followed by legal notice dated 08.12.2021 are available on record as Annexure C-2 & C-3.

                During arguments, the authorized representative of the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint has prayed for acceptance of the complaint by giving the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

6.             The OP has preferred not to contest the present complaint by remaining absent despite service of notice and accordingly, it was  proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.03.2022 and thus, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.             Evidently, the controversy in the present case is related about the refund of the admission fee etc. as deposited by the complainant in the OP institute qua the admission of his daughter, so, it is necessary to look into the relationship of student vis-à-vis the educational institution, which provides education related services to its students.  

8.             In this regard, the Hon’ble National Commission in Manu Solanki case(supra) after having a detailed discussion of various case laws as propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in cases such as Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010(11) SCC 159, dated 19.07.2010, P.T.Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., 2012(3) CPCP 615(SC), Anupama College of Engineering Vs. Gulshan Kumar and Anr.  in civil appeal nos. 17802 and 17803 of 2017 dated 30.10.2017 and P.Sreenivasulu & Anr. Vs. P.J.Alexander & Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos.7003-7004 of 2015 dated 09.09.2015 held that the educational institutions do not provide any service to the students. The relevant para of the said order/judgment for the sake of clarity and convenience is reproduced as under:-

51.     In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Institution rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities        undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission         and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities,           swimming, sport, etc. except Coaching institutions, will, therefore, not be        covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

9.             Pertinently, the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the Manu Solanki case(supra) is now pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Diary No.12901 of 2020, wherein  the Hon’ble Bench comprising of Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, JJ.on 15.10.2020 passed the following order in the case of Manu Solanki (supra).

                “Since there are divergent views of this court bearing on the subject as to whether an educational institution or university would be subject to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the appeal would require admission”. In another SLP No.16591 of 2021 titled as Rajendra Kumar Gupta Vs. Dr.Virendra Swarup Public School & Anr. involving similar question of law and facts, the Hon’ble Apex Court passed the following orders:-

                “Having regard to the pendency of Civil Appeal no.3504 of 2020 (Manu Solanki and others Vs. Vinayaka Mission University), the issue as to        whether education is a service within the   Consumer Protection Act, is      pending before this Court”.

10.            Since the moot question qua the relationship between the student and the educational institution is yet to be decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Manu Solanki case(supra) as well as other connected case, it would be proper to adjourn the case sine die till the controversy is  final settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court  and it is ordered accordingly. However, it is made clear that either of the party to the complaint shall be at liberty to get the present complaint restored at its original number as and when the controversy involved in the present case is finally adjudicated by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

Announced on:13.09.2022

 

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal         

           Member                          Member                     President

 

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

 

 

                                         Satpal,                              

                                        President