IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI

SRI. C.V. MARGOOR,PRESIDENT

O R D E R

1. This complaint filed by Sri. Thilak Kumar P.P s/o. Ponnappa P.N, aged 46 years, resident of Jamboor Village, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu District against the Managing Trustee, Jnanaganga Education Trust Regd. “Panchavati”, Attur Village, Harangi Post, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu Distirct to direct the opponent to refund a sum of Rs.62,100/- along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 13/06/2018 till realization of the amount along with compensation and cost of this proceedings.

2. The complainant had admitted his daughter Shreyanka P.T to 8^th Standard in the opponent school on 21/05/2018 by paying total fee of Rs.62,100/-.  The said amount includes Admission, Tuition, School, Computer fees, books and Stationery, Uniform, Food  and hostel fee.  The complainant’s daughter has stayed in the opponent’s hostel till 13/06/2018 and attended the classes till that day only.  The climate condition of the residential school  was not suited for the complainant’s daughter hence, she was unable to continue the education in the opponent’s school.  Therefore, the complainant has withdrew his daughter from the opponent school on 13/06/2018 and admitted her to St.Mery’s School at Suntikoppa Town and now she is studying there.  After withdrawing his daughter from the opponent’s school, the complainant has approached orally and through legal notice dated 03/07/2018 requesting the opponent to refund the amount of Rs.62,100/-.  The opponent despite the service of notice did not care to refund the amount paid by the complainant.  Hence this complaint.

3. The opponent after the service of notice appeared through its learned counsel and filed written version admitting that the complainant’s daughter had stayed in their hostel and attended the school till 13/06/2018.  The opponent denied that the climate condition of the area and atmosphere of the school was not suited for the complainant’s daughter.  Thousands of children are studying in opponent school and staying in the Hostel.  Based upon the students strength, fee structure is worked out and informed to the parents.  On the same line salary and strength of the staff is also worked accordingly.  Admission of the student in the opponent residential school ends on 31^st of May every year.  The place of the complainant’s daughter running for whole year ran empty.  The next contention of opponent is that the opponent is not service provider since it is not rendering service for consideration.  The complainant is not consumer as such this Forum is not having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  On the amongst other grounds, the opponent prays to dismiss the complaint.

4. The complainant filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and got marked exhibits P1 to P3 documents.  On behalf of opponent its Secretary one P.N. Ananthapadmanabha s/o. P.K. Nagaraja Shetty filed  affidavit in lieu of evidence.

5. We heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant and opponent and the points that would arise for determination are as under;

1. Whether the complainant proves that he is consumer under Consumer Protection Act?

2. Whether the complainant further proves that the act of opponent not refunding the school fee amounts to deficiency in service?

3. Is complainant entitled to the relief sought for?

4. What order?

6. Our findings on the above points is as under;

• Point No.1:- In the Negative
• Point No.2:- In the Negative
• Point No.3:- In the Negative
• Point No.4:- As per final order for the below

R E A S O N S

7. Point No.1 to 4:- The learned counsel for the complainant urged that the complainant has paid total fee of Rs.62,100/- for whole year and his daughter had stayed in the residential school till 13/06/2018.  The learned counsel submitted that the opponent cannot refund admission and school fees of Rs.1,300/- out of Rs.62,100/-.  The opponent Education Institution is service provider as such the complainant becomes the consumer under the Act.  As against this, the learned counsel representing the opponent vehemently argued that opponent Education Institution is not service provider as such the complaint is not maintainable.

8. The opponent has not disputed that the daughter of complainant had admitted in their residential school to 8^th standard and the complainant has paid school and hostel fees total sum of Rs.62,100/- on 21/05/2018 vide exhibit P1, 1(a) and 1(b) receipts.  It is not dispute that the daughter of complainant had stayed in the residential school of the opponent till 13/06/2018 and thereafter she got admission in another school at Suntikoppa, Kodagu District.  The opponent has admitted service of exhibit P2 legal notice dated 03/07/2018 issued to it for refund of school fee of Rs.62,100/-.  The learned counsel for the opponent in support of their arguments that the complainant is not consumer and opponent not service provider relied upon catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, National Commission and State Commission.  The learned counsel for the opponent brought to this Forum notice the case of Anupama College of Engineering v/s Gulshan Kumar and others the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.17803 of 2017 (Special Leave petition No.17679/2017) dated 30^th October, 2017 wherein it is held that in view of the judgment of this court in Maharshi Dayanand University v/s Surjeet Kaur (2010)11 SCC 159 wherein this court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a signature not verified commodity.  Educational Institutions are not providing Digitally signed by Meenakshi Kohli dated 2017-11-02 any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, 16:56:02 first Reason: fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service.  Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act.

9. The learned counsel for the opponent further relied upon the case of Maharshi Dayananda University v/s Surjeet Kaur 2010 AIR SCW 6001,  Bihar School Examination Board v/s Suresh Prasad Sinha Civil Appeal No.3911/2003 dated 04/09/2009 (Supreme Court), Regional Institute of Co-operative Management v/s Naveen  Kumar Chaudhary, Revision petition No.638/2014 and others dated 02/05/2014 (National Commission) , Indian Institute of Banking and Finance Vs Mukul Srivastava Revision Petition No.3161/2012 dated 07/01/2013 (National Commission), Miss Amrita Rai Sagar Vs Roy Foundation College and another CC No.52/2016 dated 08/02/2017 (State Consumer Commission Chhattisgarh),  Principal Institute of Technology, Kobra Vs Umesh Kumar Sahu and another Appeal No.622/2012 dated 27/03/2015 (State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Chhattisgarh) and Deemed University by its Registrar Vs District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thanjavur WP No.13993/2012 and 15058/2012 dated 09/01/2015 (Madras High Court).  The Apex Court in Anupama College of Engineering Vs Gulshan Kumar and others (cited supra) by following the decision of Maharshi Dayanand University Vs Surjeet Kaur and P.T. Koshy and another Vs Ellen Charitable Trust and others held that Educational Institutions are not service providers as such matter of admission, return of fees cannot be a question of deficiency of service.  Such matter cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the complaint is not maintainable as it is held that the opponent school is not service provider and the complainant cannot become consumer under the Act.  Therefore, in view of the decision of Supreme Court the complaint is not maintainable.

10. The learned counsel for the complainant laid their hand on I (2012) CPJ 194 the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in FIIT JEE LTD Vs Dr. Minathi Rath held under Section 2(1)(c), 2(1)(d)(ii) and 2(1)(e) of Consumer Protection Act that admittedly  respondents are consumers who sought to avail services for consideration and petitioner is provider of these services.  Thus, these cases are consumer dispute within the meaning of Act.  In paragraph No.10 of the order the National Commission referred the case of Islamic Academy of Education Vs State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697 wherein the Apex Court interalia observed as follows;

“It must be mentioned that during arguments it was pointed out to us that some educational institutions are collecting, in advance, the fees for the entire course i.e. for all the years.It was submitted that this was done because the institute was not sure whether the student would leave the institute midstream. It was submitted that if the student left the course in midstream then for the remaining years the seat would lie vacant and the institute would suffer.  In our view an educational institution can only charge prescribed fees for one semester/year, if an institution feels that any particular student may leave in midstream then, at the highest, it may require that student to give a bond/bank guarantee that the balance fees for the whole course would be received by the institute even if the student left in midstream.If any educational institution has collected fees in advance, only the fees of that semester/year can be used by the institution.The balance fees must be kept invested in fixed deposits in a nationalized bank (emphasis supplied).As and when fees fall due for that semester/year can be withdrawn by the institution.The rest must continue to remain deposited till such time that they fall due.At the end of the course the interest earned on these deposits must be paid to the student from whom the fees were collected in advance”.

In the above decision the Apex Court held that if any educational institution has collected fees in advance, only the fees of that semester/year can be used by the institution.The balance fees must be kept invested in fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank.In the present case on hand the opponent’s school has collected the advance fee for a single year i.e. for the academic year of 2018-19.On the other hand in the cases referred by Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission the institutions have collected advance fees for two years or more.The Apex Court held that if fee is collected for one year and if the student withdrew from the school during midstream the said fee cannot be returned back.The case relied by the complainant is not helpful to him and on the contrary it helps the opponent.

11. The complainant relied upon another case of National Commission FIIT JEE LTD Vs Pramod Panwar reported in II (2012) CPJ 562 wherein under Section 2(1)(g) and 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act held that poor quality of teaching imparted at institute -Admission withdrawn.  Refund of balance amount sought – mental and physical pain.  District Forum allowed complaint whereas State Commission dismissed appeal.  Hence revision- institute could not have collected fees for entire duration of course i.e. two years which comes to Rs.94,282/- and out of which respondent had deposited Rs.74,446/-.  Since respondent’s son had studied for 5 ½ months, it would be reasonable for institute to deduct Rs.47,441/- and refund the balance amount to respondent.  Order of State Commission modified by reducing amount of refund of balance fee from Rs.55,000/- to 30,000/- direction issued.  In the above case the appellant institution has collected fees for entire duration of course i.e. two years.  The National Commission ordered for refund of one year fees since the son of respondent had studied for 5 ½ months.  As already observed that in the case on hand the opponent’s school has collected fee for single Academic year and the daughter of complainant studied for 13 days during that Academic year.  The opponent school has not collected fees in advance for another Academic year.  Even in the citations relied upon by the complainant it is held that the fees collected by opponent for single academic year cannot be refunded.  In the citations relied upon by the complainant the educational institutions have collected fees in advance for more than one academic year i.e. for duration of entire course.  Therefore, the National Commission directed to refund the amount which collected for the next academic year in advance.  Hence, the citations relied by the complainant are not helpful to him.  On this count also the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the fees collected for the single academic year cannot be ordered for return to the complainant.  For the above discussion, we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint filed by Sri. Thilak Kumar P.P s/o. Ponnappa P.N fails hence, it is dismissed.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own cost.
3. Furnish copy of order to the complainant and opposite party at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 16^thday of MARCH, 2019)

                                                      (C.V. MARGOOR)

                                                          PRESIDENT 

                                                    (M.C. DEVAKUMAR)

                                                             MEMBER