DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER

             This appeal has arisen out of the order dated 15.01.2015 in Case No. 628/2013 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas (in short, District Forum). By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum has dismissed the case.

             This is a case by the Complainant for a direction to refund his deposited amount Rs.40,000/- made for his son Prithuraaj Saha’s admission under the guidance of the OP to the  IERECM Institution of Information Technology, Habra, North 24 Parganas, in IT stream, which for some personal reason his son disliked. So,  the prayer for refund of the said sum.

             On the other hand, the case of the Respondent is that no refund is permissible as deposited admission fees if prayed for beyond 28.7.2012. As this case falls within that category, the Complainant is not entitled to any benefit.

              It is to be considered if the impugned order suffers from any kind of anomaly so as to make an interference therein in this appeal.

Decision with reasons

             Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submits that the genuine demand of refund of Rs.40, 000/- has been disallowed without any valid cause, and also that the Appellant got admission in another stream in the another Institute under the same management paying the usual fees. So, he is entitled to refund, and that it does not fall squarely within the debarred category of education. He also refers the order No. 7 dated 05.06.2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum holding that the present complaint is maintainable. But, in the finality of the case, the Ld. District Forum has disallowed the case on the ground of non-maintainability.

             Ld. Advocate for the Respondent submits that not only the case falls within the exclusion category being education not a service as specifically pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and held so in the  impugned order, but also the Appellant faltered by blocking the seat  beyond the stipulated date of 28.7.2012 and a genuine candidate failed to get the seat, and the refund is not permissible as per the rules and regulations, for which the last date for application is 28.7.2012, which the Appellant failed to do.

             There is hardly any merit in this appeal. The stipulation of the Respondent has not been taken into account by the Appellant for seeking refund. Otherwise also the case is a bar in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s dictum in the case of Maharshi Dayanand University Vs Suraj Kaaur, as reflected in the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal fails and stands dismissed. Impugned order is affirmed.