Sri Partha Kumar Basu, Hon’ble Member :
This complaint case is filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in a matter of dispute in the field of education about deficiency of service from a vocational training institute engaged in Jewellery Designing, Making and Manufacturing against the OP-1 Director / Principal of M/s Dream-Zone of Kolkata-700 071 and the OP- 2 Director / Principal, Profex Institute of Technical Education, Kolkata-700 016.
The brief facts of this complaint case as averred by petitioner is that the complainant after being informed about a professional certificate course in jewellery designing, making and manufacturing as offered by the OP Institute, the petitioner approached them for getting Vocational Training. During pre-admission counselling about career guidance the petitioner was intimated that the course in which he was seeking enrolment consists of 3 parts namely jewellery Designing, jewellery Making and jewellery Manufacturing being the entire course fee of Rs.80,000/- excluding service tax. The complaint got enrolled in June, 2017 for the 1- year 2-month course with a promise that 2 no of classes of 2 hour session each would be held per week. The petitioner paid a sum total of Rs. 92,000/- in instalments to OP towards entire course fee. But it is alleged by the petitioner that the OP Institute did not complete the full course as per time schedule. It is alleged that the institute covered only the Jewellery designing and Jewellery making part of it, but neglected to complete the jewellery manufacturing part of the said professional certificate course. Neither any course booklet nor class timing schedule for jewellery manufacturing were intimated by the OPs. The petitioner attended all the classes that were held but did not get the services of imparted vocational training though entire course fee was paid. Hence the case on deficiency of service and unfair trade practices is filed by the petitioner against the OPs. It is also the case of the petitioner that the OP Institute has not issued any certificate including completion of the course fee till filing of the case and due to such incomplete services, the vocational course became infructuous for the petitioner. An Advocate’s notice dated 03.11.2022 was served upon the OPs that was refused for taking delivery by OPs. As such the petitioner prays for a direction upon the OPs to complete the course by providing necessary classes on jewellery manufacturing and to issue course completion certificate and to refund the entire consideration amount of Rs.92,000/-along with interest, compensation of Rs.50,000/-, compensation for mental agony for Rs.50,000/- and a litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-
The petitioner annexed copies of following documents in support of his contentions as below :-
- Annexure- “A-“ Students Identity Card issued by Green-Zone/Profex, valid till March, 2018.
- Annexure- “B-“ money receipts for Rs.92,000/- issued by Green Zone / Profex Institute on various dates from 04.06.2017 to 10.03.2018.
- Annexure- “C-“ Advocate’s notice dated 05.11.2022 to lend support to the petitioners.
As no section of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is mentioned in this complaint petition, hence the complaint case is dealt with u/s 35 of the said Act.
Heard on 07.02.2024 on ex-parte basis as the OPs neither appeared to contest the case nor filed W/V. The Ld. Advocate of the petitioner advanced arguments and filed BNA. The matter is therefore adjudicated on merit as per materials on record.
From the perusal of the petition of petitioner it is found that the Petitioner before the District commission has grievances about incomplete coverage of course curriculum. But it is to be examined in it’s first place that whether the complaint is an Educational Institution or not. View the law laid down by a Larger Bench of 3 Members of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Manu Solanki and Others Vs. Vinayak Mission University and other connected cases, 1(2020) CPJ, 2010, the larger Bench had held that Educational matters do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and therefore the Complaint is not maintainable. Relevant portion of the Order is reproduced below for ready reference :-
“37. The following legal issues arise from the submissions made by the rival parties and the aforenoted decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:
Do institutions involved in vocational training like, nursing, designing etc. strictly fall within the definition of ‘Educational Institutions’.
45. We are of the considered view that conduction of Coaching Classes does not fall within the ambit of definition of ‘Education’ as defined by the Hon’ble Seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar (Supra). Coaching Centres cannot be equated to regular schools or colleges which are regulated by a Regulatory Authority and also confer a Degree/Diploma on the student who has passed in the examinations conducted as per the Rules and norms specified in the statute and also by the concerned Universities. Therefore, strictly speaking Coaching Centres cannot fall within the definition of ‘Educational Institutions’. We refrain from making any comments on the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners with respect of Coaching Institutions indulging only in ‘rote learning’.
46. For all the afore-noted reasons, we are of the opinion that any defect or deficiency or unfair trade practice pertaining to a service provider like ‘Coaching Centres’ does fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.
51. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Institutions 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.”
Therefore view above discussions and as per facts of this case, it can be safely concluded that the instant case in hand is falling well within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the consumer is falling under the scopes and meaning of a ‘consumer’.
Now by delving into the factual part of the instant case briefly stated, the OP institutes provide vocational training in the field of jewellery and the petitioner paid Rs. 92,000/- covering full expenses towards the said course for the curriculum on jewellery Designing, jewellery Making and jewellery Manufacturing. Allegedly, out of the 3 parts of the curriculum, one part i.e. the jewellery Manufacturing was not imparted by the OP institute. As such the petitioner filed the instant consumer complaint before this District Forum seeking refund of the expenditure incurred on the admission along with compensation and interest from the OP. Upon examination of all materials on record including the exhibits from the petitioner, cogent proofs like all the receipts are going to show that the ‘jewellery manufacturing’ part is included in the course curriculum for which consideration money was taken by the OP institute from the complainant on multiple occasions. This lends support to the claims filed by petitioner in support of his contentions. Having said that, jewellery manufacturing is undoubtly a part scheduled in the course curriculum. The petitioner has therefore been able to provide materials in support of his contention to prove that the services promised by OPs included things to do with the scheduling of classes on this particular subject. The promises made by the OPs that the course would include that particular subject remained uncomplied. As such there was deficient services in arranging to conduct that particular subject in that ongoing course including its scheduling and associated issues of attendance, curriculum etc. Thus the petitioner has succeeded to bring in records of the alleged deficiency in services.
Hence the Petitioner’s allegation having put to inconvenience, harassment, mental agony against OPs is substantiated.
As the petitioner has paid full course fees is entitled to undergo the said course completed in all respect by providing necessary classes as per course curriculum by the OPs and a course completion certificate thereof to be issued subject to satisfactory completion.
In view of the foregoing discussions, the complaint case succeeds in part.
Hence it is,
ORDERED
That the instant complaint case is hereby allowed ex-parte against the O.Ps. in part without any cost with the following directions :-
- With advance written intimation to the petitioner, the OP institutes will arrange for classes, both theoretical and practical (if any) strictly as per curriculum for the petitioner on the jewellery manufacturing part of the existing course and maintain records.
- A course completion certificate for the entire course to be issued by the OPs to the petitioner after completion.
Classes for the course have to commence within 60 days from the date of this order or from the next session, whichever earlier. There will be no additional financial implication on the part of the complainant till issuance of final certificate.
Alternatively, the O.P. Institute is hereby directed to refund Rs. 6,386/- to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order, i.d., it will carry interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. the expiry of 60 days.
There will be no order as to costs.
In case of non-compliance by the OPs within stipulated period of 60 days, the petitioner is at liberty to put the entire order into execution as per law.
Copy of this order will be available in the public domain of www.confonet.nic.in
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member
