DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.908 of 2017
Date of institution: 27.10.2017 Date of decision : 16.09.2020
1. Mrs. Narinder Kaur wife of Harpal Singh, resident of House No.1422/6, Block 14, Housefed Complex, Banur, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
2. Harpal Singh, resident of House No.1422/6, Block 14, Housefed Complex, Banur, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
3. Amninder Singh (minor) son of Harpal Singh, resident of House No.1422/6, Block 14, Housefed Complex, Banur, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
4. Palwinder Singh (minor) son of Harpal Singh, resident of House No.1422/6, Block 14, Housefed Complex, Banur, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
Both minors through their mother, next friend and natural guardian Narinder Kaur wife of Harpal Singh, resident of House No.1422/6, Block 14, Housefed Complex, Banur, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
…….Complainants
Versus
1. The British School, opp. Village Fauji Colony, Banur Landran Highway, Banur Mohali (Punjab) through their Directors.
2. Kuldip Singh, Director of British School, opp. Village Fauji Colony, Banur Landran Highway, Banur Mohali (Punjab).
3. Nirpal Singh, Director British School, opp. Village Fauji Colony, Banur Landran Highway, Banur Mohali (Punjab).
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present: None for the complainants.
OPs Ex-parte.
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act filed by the complainants Amninder Singh AND Palwinder Singh (hereinafter referred as ‘CCs’ for short) through their parents against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’ for short), on the ground that CCs who are minors, were got admitted in the school of the OPs in 7th and 4th standards respectively for the session 2016-2017. It is alleged that the OPs at the time of admission had promised that they will provide AC class rooms for the students and will also provide service of daily homework at school including lockers for keeping books. It was further promised that the OPs will also provide sports activity and there will be no school uniform from the beginning of the session. Even the personality development of the students will also be taken care of. Believing all this, the CCs paid Rs.1,77,302/- in advance through cheque No.691427 and the same was got encashed in the account of the OPs on 25.01.2016. It is alleged that the CC No.3 and 4 joined the school of the OPs in the month of April, 2016 but the OPs failed to provide service of a particular standard, quality or grade as promised by them. It is alleged that on 29.09.2016, parents of the CCs had a meeting with Board of Directors of the school. The Board of Directors also did not pay any attention towards their request/grievance rather they asked the parents of the CCs that in case they are not satisfied, then they are at liberty to withdraw the CCs from the school. Accordingly, CC No.1 and 2 withdrew the CCs from the school on 29.09.2016. It is alleged that parents of the CCs approached the office of OPs for the refund of amount of advance fee deposited by them. It is further alleged that parents of the CCs also gave an application to NRI Cell, Phase-VII, Mohali for refund of amount and even sent a legal notice, but of no use.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the CCs have sought refund of Rs.1,02,200/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum till actual realisation plus Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.21,000/- as litigation charges. Complaint of the CCs is supported by an affidavit of CC No.1.
2. The OPs have chosen to remain ex-parte and were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.03.2018 of this Commission.
3. The CCs in support of their complaint tendered in evidence affidavit of CC No.1 Narinder Kaur as Ex.CW-1/1 by reiterating the averments of the complaint and affidavit of CC No.2 Harpal Singh as Ex.CW-1/2 alongwith various documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13.
4. Since the entire evidence of the CCs is on the file and the OPs are already ex-parte, we feel that no prejudice is going to be caused to any of the parties if the present complaint is decided on merits. Otherwise also the present Consumer Protection Act is a Special Act which is enacted to provide speedy justice to the parties.
5. Since the OPs have chosen to remain ex-parte and have not come forward to legally contest the claim of the CCs, who are minors, in such a situation, we have no alternative except to believe the contents of the complaint which is duly supported by various documents and affidavits of parents of the CCs. We feel, that the evidence submitted by the CCs and the averments made are cogent, reliable and trustworthy.
6. The paramount question before us is whether the educational institutions would come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act or not and whether the education is a service or not. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Civil Appeal No.7003-7004 of 2015 P. Veenivasulu & Anr. Vs. P.J. Alexander & Anr. Dated 09.09.2015 has specifically held that Consumer Fora do not have the jurisdiction to entertain all disputes regarding any activity associated with educational institutions.
7 The question before us is whether these particular allegations of the CCs do fall within the definition of any activity associated with educational institutions or not. To our mind, the main point for consideration before us is whether all the activities associated with educational institutions whether they also pertain to admission stage or whether they are strictly a part of the curriculum or whether these activities are involved during the course of providing knowledge and that whether these activities fall within the definition of education. We feel, that at this stage it is very important to understand the definition of “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act:
“Consumer” means any person who-
- buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose ; or
- hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed or with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.
Explanation:- For the purpose of this clause-
- The expression “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self employment.
- The expressions “buys any goods” and “hires or avails any services” includes offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing.”
8. Further it is important to understand the word “service provider”. It is important to mention here that as per the definition of “service provider” under the Consumer Protection Act, educational institutions are not exempted. The “service” under the Consumer Protection Act is defined as under:-
“Service means service of any description which made available to potential users and includes , but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, telecom, boarding or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contact or personal service.”
9. Since no one is present on behalf of the OPs despite service, in such a situation we have no alternative except to believe that OPs are deficient in providing service to the CCs. In these circumstances, we believe that the educational institution of the OPs comes within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
10. It is generally seen that educational institutions are opened nowadays like shops. These institutions charge exorbitant fee from parents. Poor and even middle class parents are not able to admit their children in these types of schools. Since OPs are ex-parte and there is no explanation, how and in what manner the money was charged, so we have no alternative except to go by the averments of the complaint.
11. In view of our above findings, the present complaint is allowed against the OPs who are directed to refund Rs.1,02,200/ (Rs. One Lakh two thousand two hundred only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realisation. The OPs are further burdened to pay lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) to the CCs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
September 16, 2020
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
