Delhi

West Delhi

CC/12/443

Dinesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Director/Manager,IIT - Opp.Party(s)

01 Dec 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058        

 

                                                                                                             Date of institution:9.7.12

Complaint case No.443/12                                                              Date of Order:1.12.16

In the matter of

Dinesh Kumar,

S/o Lt. Sh. Shyam Singh,

R/o B-2/48D,Keshavpuram,

New Delhi-35                                                                                              COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

The Director/Manager,

Narayana IIT/PMTAC Academy,

15, Central Market, West Punjabi Bagh,

New Delhi-26                                                                                                          OPPOSITE PARTY

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT

 

            Brief relevant facts for disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant enrolled his daughter with Opposite Party in two year integrated classroom programme(TYCP)  for PMT weekend coaching on payment of requisite fee.   But she discontinued classes after three months as the Opposite Party was conducting the classes on Monday. She could not attend classes on week days . She was  also not satisfied with the teaching methodology of the Opposite Party institute.  The complainant requested the Opposite Party to refund tuition fee after deducting fee for period of three months.   She attended classes.  But the Opposite Parties failed to refund the tuition fee. On second request amount of Rs.12637/- was refunded  with incorrect name and address.  The Opposite Party failed to   refund the balance amount. Hence, the present complaint for

2/-

directions to the Opposite Party to refund the balance amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and pay  Rs.25,000/- for litigation expenses. 

 

            ON notice the Opposite Party filed reply  contesting the complaint while raising preliminary objections that there is no cause of action against them and there is no deficiency in service on their part.  The Opposite Party asserted that as per the policy of institute the fee once paid is not refundable but the Opposite Party still refunded an amount of Rs.12637/-  on 24.4.11 to the complainant as full and final settlement  and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

 

            The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the Opposite Party reiterating his stand taken in the complaint  and controverting the stand taken by Opposite Party in their reply.  

 

            Both the parties lead evidence by way of affidavits.  They also relied upon some documents.  The  complainant in his affidavit dated 10.4.13 once again reiterated his stand taken in the complaint.   He relied upon  copy of receipt dated 25.2.10, copies of letters dated 5.2.11and 19.5.11 for refund of fee, copy of letter dated 5.8.11 for reissuance of cheque, copy of identity card, copy of legal notice and  copy of RTI application dated 30.1.13.The Opposite Party filed affidavit of Rajvir Singh dated 19.12.12 reiterating their stand taken in the reply.  Written arguments were filed by both the parties.   

 

We have heard Ld. Counsel for parties and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly. We are of the opinion that the main controversy/

3/-

issue is “whether complainant’s daughter , is consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and the opposite party is service provider”?

 

      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. he educational institutionals are not service providers. Therefore, the students are not consumers. 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.

 

       Similar are the facts of the present case .The complainant’s daughter took admission with opposite party educational Institution for  taking coaching for preparation of PMT entrance examination on payment of the requisite fee. She left the institution at her own.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party      The opposite party  is imparting education. Therefore, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court,  Hon’ble National Commission and  Hon’ble State

4/-

Commission of Chandigarh time and again education is not a commodity and the opposite party is not service provider and the  complainant is not a consumer under the  Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has also failed to show that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. 

 

      Therefore, complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act-1986.  . Resultantly  the complaint is dismissed.

Order pronounced on :1.12.16

• 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