Delhi

StateCommission

A/843/2014

RISHI KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE GURU GOVIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY - Opp.Party(s)

15 May 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 15.05.2017

 

First Appeal-843/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 19.7.14 passed by the District Forum-(North), Tis Hazari, in complaint case No. 276/12)

 

 

       In the Matter of:

 

          Rishi Kumar

          B-54/S-2, Shalimar Garden Extension-2

          Sahibabad Ghaziabad, U.P.

……Appellant                                         Versus   The Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University Kashmere Gate, Delhi-03 Also at:- Sector 16 C, Dwarka New Delhi-110075,                                                                               …….Respondent

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

1.       By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 19.7.14 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North), Tis Hazari Delhi in complaint case No. 276/12.

2.       Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant had filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the respondent/OP. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that son of the appellant/complainant, namely, Sh. Rishab Kumar took admission in the B.Tech (Dual Degree) Computer Science & Eng. University School of Information Technology of O.P. University for academic session 2010-2011 and deposited fee of Rs.48,000/-. Thereafter, son of the appellant/complainant got admission in another University and, therefore, the appellant/complainant applied for cancellation of admission and refund of fee vide application dated 3.9.10 before closing of counseling. It was alleged by the appellant/complainant that OP had not refunded the fees despite several requests and serving of legal notice dated 31.10.11 to respondent/OP company of these facts. Appellant/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum praying therein to refund the amount of Rs.48,000/- alongwith interest @18%, apart from cost and compensation.

3.       The District Forum issued notice of this complaint to the respondent/OP. The respondent/OP appeared and filed written statement. It was admitted by the respondent/OP that son of appellant/complainant had taken admission in B.Tech (Dual Degree) CSE programme of OP University in first counseling on 27.07.10 and deposited Rs.48,000/- as provisional admission fee. The contention of the respondent/OP was that the last date of withdrawal of admission was 20.8.10 whereas the appellant/complainant had submitted application with OP on 3.9.10 i.e. when the second counseling had already commenced. It was further alleged that the appellant/complainant was bound by the terms and conditions notified to him in the Admission Brochure and since last date of withdrawal of admission was 20.8.10 and appellant/complainant did not submit the withdrawal application up to 5.00p.m. on 20.8.10, he was not entitled for refund of fee. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made before the Ld. District Forum.

4.       Both the parties had filed their evidence by way of affidavit reiterating the same facts as in the complaint and in the written statement.

5.       Considering the pleadings and the evidence filed by the parties, the Ld.  District Forum  observed as under:-

                   “From the various legal issues raised before this forum, the first and foremost issue which arises between parties is that as to what is the status of terms and conditions contained in the prospectus which have been accepted by a candidate? Whether consumer forum, which has been constituted under Consumer Protection Act, is empowered to decide the validity of terms and conditions contained in the prospectus? In Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh v. Miss Gunita Virk (1996) CPJ 37 (NC), in which case the decision was given by a five member bench consisting of Hon’ble President and four Hon’ble Membes of the Hon’ble National Commission, the complainant had taken admission in the Medical College which had made a provision in the prospectus making the fee non-refundable. Question arose whether consumer for a, under the Consumer Protection Act, have jurisdiction to check validity of such clause in the prospectus? The answer was given in the negative by five member bench of Hon’ble National Commission. It was held that “for a constituted under the Consumer Protection Act have no jurisdiction to declare any rule in the prospectus of any Institution as unconscionable or illegal. It is for the Civil Court to determine this point”.

                    Counsel of O.P. has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi reported as  Kalka Institute (supra) where it has been held by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi that even if there has been no loss to the University, the candidate who withdraws admission afer the date specified for withdrawl of admission, cannot be refunded the fee deposited by him. In the present case son of the complainant took admission to B.Tech (dual degree) course of O.P. University during the first counseling on 27.07.2010 and as per his own admission he withdrew his admission on  03.09.2010.

                    Another question arises in this case is whether complainant qualifies to be consumer? In Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010(II) SCC 159 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 19.7.2010 in Civil Appeal No.6807 of 2008 which was subsequently followed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. decided on 09.08.2012 in Civil Appeal No.22535/2012, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that since education is not a commodity, educational institutions are not provided any kind of service, therefore, matter of admission fees etc. do not fall within the definition of deficiency of service and that these matters cannot be entertained by consumer forum under Consumer Protection Act. In view of the above decisions of Hon’b le Supreme Court, complainant is not qualified to be consumer within the meaning of section 2 (1)(d) of the Act.

                    In view of the reasons given above, the authorities referred to above and the decision of law as Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh Vs.. Miss Gunita Virk I (1996) CPJ 37 (NC) (decided by five member bench of Hon’ble National Commission) that the District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to declare any rule in the prospectus of any institution as unconscionable and illegal since such matters are appropriate subject matter of civil court, we hold that complainant is not entitled for any relief. Complaint is, therefore, dismissed.”   

6.       Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Ld. District Forum, present appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.       The main contention of the appellant/complainant is that the Ld. District Forum has failed to appreciate the UGC & Ministry of HRD guidelines. In the Matter of Andhra University & Anr. Vs. Jaanjanam Jagedeesh III(2010) CPJ 310 (NC), the National Commission has observed that as per the UGC guidelines, the Ministry of Human Resource Development and University Grants Commission have considered the issue and decided that the institutions and Universities, in the public interest shall maintain a waiting list of student/candidates in the event of a student/candidates withdrawing before the starting of the course, the wait-listed candidate should be given admission against the vacant seat.  Another contention of the appellant/complainant is that the respondent/OP has not provided services for the amount received, therefore, they should return the amount paid by the appellant/complainant.

8.       We have heard the Counsel for the parties and gone though the material on record.      

9.       There is no dispute between the parties that this is a case of refund of the fees and there are judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it has been held that the Educational Institution i.e. Universities/Boards are not providing any kind of service rather they perform the statutory duties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharishi Dayanand Univervisty v Surjit Kaur  2010 (2) CPC 696 SC; Bihar School Examination Board  v. Suresh Prasad Sinha 2010 (1) CLT 255 (SC) as well as P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellecn Charitable Trust & Ors.  2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC) has held that eduction is not a commodity. Educational institutions imparting education are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in the matter of admission fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer protectin Act, 1986.

          Appellant/complainant is seeking refund of fee from respondent/OP. In such a case there is no question of deficiency of service as has been discussed above as the Ld. District Forum has no jurisdiction to deal with the case.

10.     In view of above discussion, the Ld. District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint of the appellant/complainant. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Ld. District Forum. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

11.     A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs as well as to Ld. District Forum-(North), Tis Hazari for necessary information.

          File be consigned to record room.

        (Justice Veena Birbal))

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member