Haryana

Ambala

CC-325-2013

ASHOK KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE ICL GROUP OF COLLEGES - Opp.Party(s)

R.D BEDI

30 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                       Complaint Case No.:  325 of 2013

Date of Institution   :  05.12.2013

Date of Decision    :    30.09.2015

1.       Ashok Kumar son of Sh. Om Parkash father/Guardian of Arjun Raj Singh C/o Shri Ram Agencies, Near Head Post Office, Kangra (H.P.).

2.       Sumesh Singla son of late Sh.Gian Chand father/Guardian of Swati Singla R/o H.No.22, HIG Housing Board Colony, Kangra (H.P.)                                                           

                                                                                                                               ….Complainants  

Versus

1.       The ICL Group of Colleges, Sountli, Post Office Shahzadpur, District Ambala through its Chairman.

2.       Director/Principal, Architecture and Town Planning, ICL Group of Colleges, Sountli, Post Office Shahzadpur, District Ambala.

          ……Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:    SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                  

Present:       Sh. R.D. Bedi, Adv. counsel for complainants.

                   Sh. Keshav Sharma, Adv. counsel for Ops.

ORDER:

                   Present complaint has been filed by the complainant alleging therein that the complainants took admission in Architecture & Town Planning (10 semesters course) in the OP-college in August 2013 and  paid Rs.45,250/- and Rs.54425/- as fee’s on 04.08.2013 respectively including hostel charges etc. The complainants further alleged that teaching facilities were not proper  in the institute as the lecturers were inexperienced as well as proper hostel facilities were also not  available. So,  they decided to  withdraw their wards from the OP institute and got admission in Indo Global Group of Colleges at Abhipur, Mohali. Therefore, the Ops were informed vide written applications dated 29.08.2013 for withdrawal from the admission and refund of their fees as well as return of their documents as per prayer clause of the complaint.  

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and raised preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of the complaint. On merits, it has been admitted that the complainants got deposited the fees of Rs.45250/- & Rs.54425/- respectively  and their wards continued their studies for about a month and during this period, they never made any complaint rather were satisfied with the facilities being provided by the institute and after that they made up their mind to leave the institute without any reasonable cause. It has been further stated by the Ops that when the complainants requested for withdrawing from the Institute, by that time, the admission process was complete and was confirmed to the controlling authority being the online process and thus it was not possible for the OP institute to cancel the admission & refund the  fee to the complainants.  In the end, Ops have requested for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                No evidence led by the parties.

4.                We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. Before proceeding further, the foremost question arises for consideration before the Forum is “Whether the educational institutions are providing any service to the students?”

                   In P.T. Koshy & Anr. Versus Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. 2012(3) CPC 615 (SC), Hon’ble Apex court after referring to judgment Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 has held that education is not commodity and Educational institutions are not providing any service. Therefore, in the matter of admission, fee etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency in service. Such matters cannot be entertained  by the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

Further in case titled as Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Parshad Sinha, reported in CPJ 2009(IV) Pg.34 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme court has  held that the examination fee paid by student is not a consideration for availment of service, but charge paid for privilege of participation in examination.  It has also been held that education Boards and universities are not ‘Service provider’ and the complaints against them are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. 

                   Further, in another case law titled as ICL Institute of Management and Technology Vs. Ranjit Singh & Anr. First Appeal No.166 of 2014 decided on 12.05.2014, our Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula has held that the complaint for refund of fees was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act before the Fora.

                   In view of the legal position enunciated above, present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, hence, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant shall have liberty to seek his grievance before the proper Forum or Civil Court, as per law.  Complainant can seek help for condonation of delay in accordance with law laid down in Luxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute reported in SCC 1995(3) Pg. 583. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced: 30.09.2015                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                                             (A.K. SARDANA)

                            PRESIDENT                 

 

 

                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                            (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                        MEMBER