BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

                                          C.C.No.50/2014

Dated this the 15^th day of June 2016.

(Date of Institution: 10.07.2014)

S. Kishore Kumar

(Father and Natural Guardian of Suraj Kumar)

F/o Suraj Kumar

158 (80) Kosa Kadai Street

Puducherry – 605 001.

….     Complainant

vs

The Chairman                          

Sri Ganesh College of Engineering and Technology

Mullodai, Pondicherry – 607 402.

                                                          ….     Opposite Party

BEFORE:

          THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

          PRESIDENT 

Tmt. PVR. DHANALAKSHMI, B.A.,B.L.,

           MEMBER

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B., 

MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:  Thiru S. Kishore Kumar, Party in person

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: Thiru V. Govindaraju, Advocate,

O R  D  E  R

(by Thiru A. Asokan, President)

              This is a complaint filed by the complainant u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act for ;

1. Directing the Opposite Party to refund a sum of Rs.19,600/- paid in excess in the first year with interest at 24% per annum from payment date till paid;
2. Directing the opposite party for waiver of college fees as the college had the chance to admit a student through lateral entry;
3. Directing the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.4,25,000/- towards expenses, mental agony, hardship, stress, strain and for deficiency of service;
4. to pay the cost Rs.20,000/- towards this complaint.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

          The complainant stated that his son K. Suraj Kumar was admitted in the Opposite Party's college in B.Tech,  EEE through CENTAC in August 2012.  The complainant requested for return of TC and others from Opposite Party's college  orally on 5.8.2013 followed by a  registered letter dated 7.9.2013 as his son discontinued his studies and sent his son to collect the T.C. and other documents in the month of October and on 22.11.2013 for which the Opposite Party's college CO asked the complainant to pay 3^rd Semester fees of Rs.26,000/- or to write a letter to the Chairman to reduce the amount to Rs.9000/- for two months, the period of his son attended the college.  But, the complainant's son attended the college only for 45 days.  The complainant paid a sum of Rs.59,600/- for the first year, in which a sum of Rs.19,600/- is excess amount instead of Rs.10,000/- as per reply received by way of RTI.  The Opposite Party's college promised to return back the amount when they received CENTAC amount from the Government, but they did not do so.  The complainant issued two registered letters on 15.01.2014 to the Registrar / Vice Chancellor, Pondicherry University and the Principal / Administrative Officer of Opposite Party's college requesting T.C. and other documents held with college, waiver of college fees and for return of excess amount, however, on 31.01.2014 he received the T.C. and other documents, but he did not received the excess amount paid.  The above acts of the college amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence this complaint.

3. The reply version filed by the opposite party briefly discloses the following:

The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The Opposite Party denied that the complainant has informed orally on 5.8.2013 about the discontinuation of study by his son Suraj Kumar.  In fact, the complainant's son not attending the classes since 3.8.2013 and the concerned class teacher was not attending the classes since 3.8.2013 and therefore, the concerned class teacher has contacted the parent over phone and enquired in this regard, for which the complainant replied that his son was sick and he would come to the college as usual after his recovery from illness.   But, on 13.09.2013 they have received a register letter dated 7.9.2013 for return of Transfer Certificate and Mark List as his son was going to France.  The opposite party informed the complainant's son over phone to come over to the college and complete the formalities like obtaining "No Due Certificate" from the concerned faculties and to meet the Principal.  But, the son of the complainant came to the college and insisted for return of Higher Secondary Transfer Certificate issued by the school authorities.  The opposite party informed that the would issue only Course Transfer Certificate.  It is denied by this opposite party that they have demanded 3^rd semester fees of Rs.26,000/-.  The complainant never met the Administrative Officer and C.O. at any point of time except at the time of admission and at the time of getting back the documents on 31.01.2014.  On 17.01.2014 this opposite party received a letter from the opposite party addressed to Pondicherry University for return of Transfer Certificate and other documents, waiver of fees and return of excess amount for which they have properly replied through letter dated 18.02.2014 to the Assistant Registrar, Pondicherry University stating that the petitioner has paid an excess amount of either Rs.10,000/- or Rs.19,600/- was false and the request for waiver of college fees for the III Semester does not have a plausible reason, since the student has discontinued the course and the resultant vacancy could not be filled up by another student.  This opposite party further stated that out of the amount of Rs.18,700/- paid by the complainant's son, an amount of Rs.4,200/- were paid towards books, stationeries and dress and the balance amount of Rs.14,500/- is towards of part of tuition fees and bus fare fees.  With regard to payment of scholarship of Rs.25,000/-, the Government of Puducherry has paid only on 11.10.2013 i.e. in the middle of second year and that too after the complainant's son has left the college.  The delay caused for return of documents is because of complainant only since they have not produced the "No Due Certificate".  Further, it is not possible to return the Higher Secondary Transfer Certificate once he has joined in the Higher Course.  But for obvious reasons, the complainant has insisted upon the same and finally he has received the Transfer certificate on 31.1.2014.  With regard to waiver of college fees, it is stated by the opposite party that the complainant's son attended the class from the re-opening of the III Semester in the II years i.e. from 19.06.2013 to 02.08.2013 and also appeared the test conducted by the faculty.  He along with some other boys has opted to change the department from EEE to ECE and it was arranged by the college.  In fact, the complainant and his son very well know that the change in course would disentitle them to get scholarship from the Government under Perunthalaiver Kamaraj Financial Assistant Scheme.  Inspite of the same, the complainant's son has opted for change of course and attended the college from 19.06.2013 to 30.08.2013.  He has attended the II year class without paying the fees and therefore, the question of waiver of fees does not arise.  Further, it is stated by the opposite party that the complainant is not a Consumer and further, he has no locus standi to file a complainant before this Forum.  Moreover, there is no deficiency in service or Unfair Trade Practice attributed by the opposite party.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

 4.      On the side of the complainant, the complainant was examined as CW1 was examined and Exs.C1 to C39 were marked.  On the side of the opposite party,  the Administrative Officer was examined as RW1 and Exs.R1 to R17 were marked. 

5.       Points for determination are :

1. Whether the Complainant is the Consumer?
2. Whether the opposite parties attributed deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

6.       Point No.1:

          It is the allegation of the Opposite Party that the complainant is not a Consumer and he has no locus standi to file this complaint.  Brief fact of the case is that the complainant's son got admission in the Opposite Party's college in B.Tech (EEE) through CENTAC (Centralised Admission Committee), in August 2012 and completed his first year and continued his second year of study from 19.06.2013 to 02.08.2013 and then, discontinued his study for some reason and hence, the complainant demanded to return the Transfer Certificate issued by the last studied school and other documents, waiver of college fees and for return of excess amount paid.   Since the complainant failed to produce "No Dues Certificate" as demanded by the College, the opposite party has not returned the Transfer Certificate and other documents and hence, the complainant filed this complaint. 

7. On the otherhand, the opposite party alleged that since the complainant's son has not produced the "No Dues Certificate" from the concerned faculties, they have not returned the Transfer Certificate and other documents.  Further, as per Rule, they could issue only Course Transfer Certificate, however, they have returned the said documents on 31.01.2014 to the complainant's son.  It is further alleged by the Opposite Party that out of the excess amount of rs.18,700/- paid by the Complainant, a sum of Rs.4,200/- was deducted towards books, stationeries and dress and the balance of Rs.14,500/- was deducted towards part of tuition fees and bus fare fees.  The Government of Puducherry has given the scholarship of Rs.25,000/- only on 10.11.2013 i.e. after the complainant's son left the college.  It is also alleged by the opposite party that the complainant's son attended the college for about two months for the second year of study and appeared the test conducted by the faculty.  Further stated that the complainant's son changed his course from EEE to ECE and as per rules, if the course is changed by a student, he is not entitled for scholarship and therefore, the complainant is not entitled for waiver of fees.  Further, the opposite party stated that the Complainant is not a Consumer  and that he has no locus standi to file this complaint before this Forum.  To fortify their contentions, the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party cited a judgment reported in 2012 (2) CPR (NC) 81 [HARYANA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL vs SHEELA DEVI AND ANOTHER] wherein, the Hon'ble National Commission has held that

"In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 1959 wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity.  Educational institutions are not provided any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, 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."

          Heard, perused the records available in this case and the evidences and arguments of both parties.  It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the opposite party that it has already been decided by the Hon'ble National Commission in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur reported in  2010 (11) SCC 1959 that "Education is not a commodity,  Educational Institutions are not provided any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, 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."  On the otherhand, the complainant submitted that he has paid fees etc. and hence, it cannot be held that the Educational Institutions are not service providers. 

          8. This Forum has considered the contentions raised by both the complainant as well as the opposite party.  The issue involved in this matter is whether the Educational Institutions will come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act and also whether a student is a Consumer.  Admittedly, in the instant case, the son of the petitioner was admitted in the opposite party's college in B.Tech (EEE) Course and completed his first year and continued his second year in ECE as alleged by the opposite party for about two months and appeared the tests conducted by the concerned faculty.  The most important issue that deserves to be answered is the competence of the District Forum to entertain such a complaint.  This Forum has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of P.T. Koshy and another vs Ellen Charitable Trust and Others in Special Leave Petition No. 22532/2012 dated 9.8.2012 and  the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission  in Revision Petition No. 627/2015 [INSTITUTE OF HOTEL MANAGEMENT & ANR. VS AJAY KUMAR PRASAD & ANR] wherein, it was held as under

     "In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaour 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, fees etc, there cannot be a question of deficiency of service.  Such matter cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."

           The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission  in Revision Petition No. 3993 of 2011 [S.K. CHAUDHARY EDUCATIONAL TRUST vs PRADEEP KUMAR CHAPARWAL] held at the initial stage itself as follows:

    "It is well settled that this Commission has no jurisdiction to pass any order in respect of students because the educational institutes are not service providers".

          9. Hence, based on the above decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, this Forum held that the Complainant is not a Consumer and also held that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  Hence, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          10. Since the point No.1 is decided as against the complainant that the complainant is not a Consumer, the Point Nos. 2 and 3 are not discussed and unanswered.  

          11. In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.  

Dated this the 15^th  day of  June 2016.

                                                                                                                                   (A.ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

                                                    MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:   

CW1           04.05.2015           Kishore Kumar

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS:

RW1           20.11.2015           Rajamohan                    

COMPLAINANTS' EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS:

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:  NIL

                                                                                                                                      (A. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

                                                   MEMBER