CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058
Date of institution:31.1.12
Complaint case No.70/12 Date of Order:23. 11.16
In the matter of
Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhalla,
S/o Lt. Khairati Lal Bhalla,
R/o WZ-1079B, Rani Bagh
Shakur Basti, Delhi. COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
The Director,
Institute of Technology Management
& Health Service
Faculty of Management,
C-173, Hari Nagar, Clock Tower,
New Delhi-64. OPPOSITE PARTY-1
Vinayaka Mission University,
Directorate of Distant Education,
Sankari Main Road(NH-47),
Ariyanoor Salem-636308
Tamil Naidu. OPPOSITE PARTY-2
ORDER
R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT
Brief relevant facts for disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant took admission in MBA(Executive)Lateral Entry Course with Opposite Party-1. He was allotted registration No.A7ND001P1330028/204103070378 by Opposite Party-1 on payment of requisite fee. On 6.3.08 complainant was told by Opposite Party-1 that
2/-
semester pattern of MBA Programme was changed. He has to select electives afresh as per the syllabus instructions under electives. The complainant in July-2008 got date sheet/hall ticket and came to know that two of the subjects which were part of the syllabus were missing and two new subjects were shown in the date sheet. The complainant was forced to appear in the said examination with new subjects. Result of the complainant was declared. There were discrepencies in the result. The complainant brought the discrepencies to the notice of Opposite Party-1 vide letter dated 17.3.09. He also sent several reminders to remove the discrepencies in his mark sheet. But with no results.
The complainant approached the Opposite Party-2 vide letter 23.7.09 with request to remove the discrepencies. But no action was taken by the Opposite Parties. The complainant meanwhile appeared in examinations conducted in August-September-2009. But his result is not declared by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties adopted unfair trade practice for promoting their management course by making false and misleading representations. Therefore,there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of the Opposite Parties. Hence, the present complaint for directions to Opposite Parties to declare the result and provide marksheet of the complainant for August-September-2009 exams, remove the discrepencies in the marksheet for September-2008and refund Rs.12,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum alongwith the compensation and and litigation expenses.
Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party-1 filed reply denying the allegations of the complaint. They asserted that there is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of Opposite Party-1while denying the stand taken by the Opposite Party-1 and reiterating his stand taken in the complaint. Whereas the Opposite Party-2 was proceeded exparte vide order dated 23.9.13.
3/-
The complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit dated 26.4.13. Wherein he admitted that mark sheet has been by the Opposite Parties before this Forum.
The complaint is fixed for final arguments since 21.8.14. But none is present on behalf of any of the parties. Therefore, we decide to dispose of the complaint on merits.
We have gone through the material placed on record carefully and thoroughly. We are of the opinion that the main controversy/ issue is “whether Ashok Kumar Bhalla complainant , is consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and the opposite parties are service providers”?
These issues have been dealt in detail by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case reported as MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY VS SURJEET KAUR 2010 (11)Supreme Court Cases 159 . Wherein it is held that education is not a commodity. The educational institutionals are not service providers. Therefore, the students are not consumers and complaint is not maintainable. Similar view is taken by another bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in special leave petition no22532/12 titled P.T.KOSHY& ANR VS ELLEN CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS decided on 9.8.12. Similar view is taken by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition no 1684/2009 titled as REGISTRAR ,GGS INDERAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY VS MISS TANVI decided on 29.1.2015 ,in Revision Petition No 4335/14 titled as Mayank Tiwari vs Fiitjee decided on 8.12.14, in Revision Petition No 3365/2006 titled FIITJEE VS DR.(MRS) MINATHI RATH, in Revision Petition No 1805/2007 titled FITJEE VS B.B.POPLI, Revision Petition No 3496/2006 P.T.Education vs Dr MINATHI and in Revision Petition No 2660/2007 all decided on 14.11.11 by common order. Similar view is also taken by Hon’ble State Commission of Chandigarh in Appeal no 244/2014 titled M/s fiitjee ltd vs Mayank Tiwari decided on 23.9.14.
4/-
Similar are the facts of the present case .The complainant took admission with opposite party-1 educational Institution for for persuing MBA(Executive) Lateral Entry Course on payment of the requisite fee. The opposite parties are imparting education. Therefore, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commission of Chandigarh time and again education is not a commodity and the opposite parties are not service providers and the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
Therefore, complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act-1986. . Resultantly the complaint is dismissed.
Order pronounced on :23.11.2016
- Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
- Thereafter, file be consigned to record.
(PUNEET LAMBA) (URMILA GUPTA) (R.S. BAGRI)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
