SMT. RAVI SUSHA : PRESIDENT
Complainants filed this complaint U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking to get an order directing opposite party to refund Rs.66,690/- and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of proceedings.
The brief facts of the case are that the 2nd complainant got admission in B.Sc Degree course in the OP college in management quota. At the time of taking admission Rs.60,000/- was deposited towards building and development fund and other fees. The complainant submits that after starting classes, the 2nd complainant was not interested in pursuing that subject further and she decided to discontinue the course. At the time of discontinuing the course and availing TC, the 2nd complainant requested the OP to refund the paid fee, but the OP refused to return the refund. The complainants submit that there is serious deficiency in service from the part of OP. Hence this complaint.
After receiving notice OP filed version stating that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainants does not come under the definition of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Along with version OP has filed a separate petition to here the question of maintainability as a preliminary issue . The said petition was closed as OP made endorsement stating “Not pressed”. Now we have take the said petition suo moto and posted for argument. The learned counsel of OP submitted a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court Dr.B.S Chauhan and Swatant kumar vs Surjeet Kaur 2010(5) Supreme 665 in which the Hon’ble Supreme court held that “A university is not a service provider and a student taking an examination is not a consumer”.
Considering the above view taken by the Apex court, we are also adopting the sme opinion. So the present case is dismissed as it is not maintainable.
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
