Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/137/2021

S.S. Saravanakumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Director, Sree Sairam Institutions - Opp.Party(s)

R. Mani Bharathi

12 Jan 2023

ORDER

                                                     Date of Complaint Filed : 15.12.2020

                                                     Date of Reservation      : 06.01.2023

                                                     Date of Order               : 12.01.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,               :  MEMBER  I 

                    THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,        : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.137/2021

THURSDAY, THE 12^th DAY OF JANUARY 2023

S.S.Saravanakumar,

F/o.Selvi.Harshini,

Door No.44, H.H.Road,

Sundararajapuram,

Madurai.                                                                                                                          ...    Complainant               

..Vs..

The Director,

Sree Sairam Institutions,

Sai Bhavan, Ashok Nagar,

T.Nagar,

Chennai-600 017.                                                                                                           ...  Opposite Party

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant        : M/s. R. Mani Barathi

Counsel for the Opposite Party     : Exparte

 

On perusal of records and upon treating the written arguments as oral arguments on endorsement made by the Complainant, we delivered the following

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to direct the Opposite Party management to refund the advance amount of Rs.25,000/- vide Ref.20190111834 dated 08.09.2019 to the Complainant with 9% interest and to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony, harassment and suffering caused by the Opposite Party along with cost of Rs.50,000/-.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

        The Complainant paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- vide ref.No.20190111834 on 08.05.2019 towards assignment of an Engineering seat under management quota in the Opposite Party college for his daughter Harshini S.A. The above said advance amount was refundable either the complainant voluntarily withdraws to avail seat in the Opposite Party college or the opposite party management declines the Complainant offer of Engineering sear under management quota. On receipt of the above said advance amount very next day onwards the Opposite Party management repeatedly started insisting the Complainant to pay further a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards advance amount for blocking the Engineering seat in their college under management quota. Being a middle class government servant, every penny in his hand is countable towards his daughter's higher education and hence the Complainant don't want to lock the huge sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in the Opposite Party college for blocking Engineering seat under management quota without confirming whether the opposite party college will allot engineering seat to the Complainant's daughter or not. Hence the Complainant immediately within 10 days from the date of payment of advance amount dated 08.05.2019 informed the Opposite Party office to cancel the Complainant’s earlier request for an engineering seat in the opposite party college and also requested the opposite party office to refund the advance amount of Rs.25,000/- paid on 08.05.2019. The opposite party office did not refund the advance amount of Rs.25,000/- till date. The complainant made several request in person and telephonic contact but there is no response from the opposite party office. The opposite party management has not suffered any loss of income because of the Complainant’s daughter did not join in the Opposite Party colleges, and the Complainant well in advance informed the Opposite Party office regarding the cancellation of the seat before the commencement of counselling itself. It is pertinent to note that the advance amount is only a caution deposit and the same is liable to refund when the said advance amount was demanded by the complainant. The opposite party management have neither complied the complainant request not sent any reply to the complainant till date. Hence the opposite party / management is guilty of deficiency of services and liable to pay the compensation to the complainant. Hence the complaint.

3.   The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as  Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2. The Opposite Party did not appear before this Commission even after sufficient notice was served and remained set exparte.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1 to 3:-

        The contention of the Complainant is that he had paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 08.05.2019 from his mother’s Canara Bank Savings Account as an advance towards assignment of one Engineering seat under Management Quota for his daughter Selvi Harshini. Thereafter the Opposite Party had contacted the Complainant to pay another sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for the Engineering seat without furnishing any detail. As the Complainant wanted to cancel his request for engineering seat, he sought for the refund of advance amount of Rs.25,000/- paid on 08.05.2019. The Opposite Party had failed to keep its promise of refunding the deposit amount if he withdraws the demand for an engineering seat well before the commencement of counselling by the Opposite Party.

        The Complainant has claimed the deposit amount of Rs.25,000/- from the Opposite Party and for compensation. Before going in to the merits of the case the first point is to be decided is whether the complaint is maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. There are catena of Judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the Hon’ble National Commission holding that education is not a commodity and that educational institutions are not rendering any kind of service. Our Hon’ble State Commission, Chennai by its order dated 29.09.2021 passed in F.A.201 of 2015 , Meenakshi College for Women Vs. U.Bhuvaneshwari has held that “Education Institutions are not providing service and thus the Complainant cannot be considered as a consumer under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986”.

        In view of the above the Complainant does not fall under the definition of Consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and hence the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. As the complaint is not maintainable, the question of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party does not arise. The complainant is not  entitled for the reliefs sought for in the complaint or for any other reliefs. Accordingly the points are answered.     

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

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 12^th of January 2023.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1	-	Bank statement of Account Entry
Ex.A2	09.10.2019	Lawyer Notice with Ack. Card

 

 

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

NIL

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT