BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 06^THDAY OF AUGUST 2022

ORDER

SRI.H.JANARDHAN, MEMBER

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 35 of C.P. Act 2019 seeking refund of admission amount of Rs.3,05,300/- and travelling/boarding and lodging expenses of Rs.22,256/-  in all Rs.3,27,556/- and pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- an account of loss of one academic year, for undergoing such mental agony, severe stress, mental trauma  and pay sum of Rs.5,27,556/- as compensation and grant  such other reliefs.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:

The complainant is a American National by birth, hails from the state of Massachusetts, USA. The complainant intended that direct admission of students abroad  and to got for  DASA Scheme formulated by the Ministry of Human Resource Department, Government of India, specially designed for the non residential Indians and foreign nationals to enroll and to take admissions into premier engineering colleges of India like IITs, NITs, IIITs, DTU, SPA and other  institutions for B.Tech, M.Tech and MBA courses. The complainant being the foreign national was eligible to apply under the said DASA scheme and accordingly submitted the online application seeking admission under DASA scheme for the academic year 2019-20. The complainant has passed qualifying SAT exams with score and get selected to the admission in few institutions of his choice for Mathematics and Computing branch and the  complainant opted to take admission at the Delhi Technological University. The complainant being qualified was issued a provisional admission  in OP-3 institution. The father of the complainant on 10.06.2019 paid  admission fee by E-payment. After collecting fee  of Rs.3,05,300/- the complainant was issued provisional admission letter.  Further directed the complainant to go and join OP-3 institution. The complainant along with his mother travelled from Bengaluru to New Delhi in order to join engineering course on 25.07.2019  went to the OP-3 institution on 26.07.2019 on the date  of admission, the co-ordinating staff  of OP-3, during the admission process  insisted the complainant to pay an additional amount  of  2^nd semester fee  to take admission to the OP-3 institution.  Immediately, the complainant contacted officials of co-ordinator of OP-2 institution DASA scheme,  but OP-3 did not complied and insisted the complainant for payment of 2^nd semester fee well in advance as per DASA scheme, by this attitude of OP, the complainant was made to pay additional fee. But the complainant was not able to arrange the same due to act of the OP. For at last  complaint was raised for the refund of amount paid by the complainant.  Complainant also got issued legal notice dt.29.02.2020 and which was duly served to the OPs, but OPs did not replied nor cared for the notice and OP did not resolved the grievance of the complainant  or refund the refund the fee/admission fee paid by him. Being aggrieved by the act of the OPs forced the complainant to file this present complaint.

3. After issuance of notice, notice duly served on  OP-1 to 3. OP-1 & 2 filed their version. In the version OP-1 & 2 contended that  OP institution is  a person of Indian origin and they  get provisional admission for the undergraduate course of Bachelor of Technology in Mathematics and computer engineering under direct admission to students abroad scheme 2019 under the DASA scheme and it has been co-ordinated by NIT Karnataka. It is admitted that the complainant have remitted even of Rs.70,500/- to the admission to the OPs institution. Further, OPs have contended that  the complaint is not maintainable either in law or in facts and the complaint is wholly misconceived, illusory, misleading and suppressed the material facts  before this Hon’ble Commission and relief sought by the complainant are in the nature of money claim and the same is not maintainable before this commission. OP-1 & 2 have also contended that  the complaint is not liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary parties. As the complainants have not made the NIT Karnataka to administer the DASA scheme and NITK is also one of the party to the proceedings and the OPs institution is co-ordinated by NITK under DASA scheme. NIT Karnataka is also a necessary party, whose presence is essential and in its absence no effective order can be passed by this Hon’ble commission. OP-1 has not authority to direct the OP-3 to make admission. OP-3 being individual statutory university established at Delhi Technological Universities Act, 2009. OP-1 has no authority to  direct OP-3 to make admit the complainant or any student   for that matter. The OP is governed by its act, rules, statutes and Rules of admission  made from time to time and OP-1 is not authorized to direct OP-3 to make any admission. Further the OPs have contended that the information regarding any additional fee to be paid at the time of admission have directed to visit the website of the allotted institute or contact them, but in the present case the complainants have not done so. The tuition fee of the subsequent semesters of study has to be paid by the complainant directly to the concerned institution as per  rules of the admitting institution. As per brochure supplied to the complainant and others under clause 2.4.1 prescribes about refund permissible  and clause 2.4.2 provides the Mode of Refund mandating that the applicant should submit an online request for cancellation of application/admission for DASA scheme 2019 and refund remittance particulars and it categorically states  that eligible refunds will be processed as per DASA policy after completion of the entire admission process. In the instant case, the complainant has not followed up to the brochure that was supplied to the complainant  and the complainant has not adhered to the clauses of 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 for the refund of the amount. When the complainant being followed up the  procedure for the refund of OP is not told to refund the said amount and as such the OP have sought for dismissal of the complaint on the above said grounds.

4. The complainant filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exhibit P1 to P9. OPs not filed affidavit evidence.

5.      Heard arguments of the complainant. Further the complainant filed memo restricting the claim against OP-1 as per order dt.29.03.2022. Perused documents.

6.      The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
3. What order?

7. Our answer to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:- Negative.

      Point No.2:- Negative.   

      Point No.3:-As per the final order.

REASONS

8.  Point No.1 & 2: On perusal of the pleadings of the complainant, it is admitted that the complainant was intended to take direct admission of students providing under DASA scheme, which was formulated by the Ministry of Human Resource Department, Government of India, which was specially designed for the non-resident of Indians and foreign nationals and the complainant intended to  join engineering college for B.Tech, M.Tech and MBA courses and also taken SAT examination  for the academic year 2019-20 under DASA scheme. The complainant was also selected  and qualified  under SAT exam for Mathematic and Computing branch. Further  the complainant have remitted amount of Rs.3,05,300/- to the OP institution and OPs have issued receipt for  the same. Further, the complainant was directed by the OP-1 to go to OP-3 to get admission at New Delhi. The complainant had travelled from Bengaluru to New Delhi to get through the admission process. The complainant was directed to pay additional amount of Rs.3,05,300/-. Though OP-1 has already taken for the admission, but OP insisted the complainant to make additional payment of Rs.3,05,300/- and though the OPs  have made complainant to pay 2^nd payment has  OP-1 had already provided brochure to the  complainant. In which it was stated that the complainant was bound to pay additional fee as per clause-2.41a and 2.41b  be liable for refund fee. More so, the complainants have not followed up the procedure as envisaged in the brochure as per clause-2.4.1a and 2.4.1b.  Further the complainant has filed memo on 29.03.2022, in which they have restricted claim against OP-1 only and OP-1 being the official co-ordinator of the DASA scheme and            OP-1 not comes under educational institution.   However, the institution in which the complainant is taking admission under educational institution. The OP-1 institution is not rendering service as education is  part of service providing agency.  

9. So education institution which are giving  or imparting education to child does not come within purview of C.P.Act. When the institution imparting education does not  provide any proper service or not rendering services, vocational courses  which are providing are also not covered under the C.P.Act. Such being the case, we feel that the OPs institution is an educational institution does not fall under the  purview of the C.P.Act. The educational institution are not providing any kind of service. Therefore, in the matter of admission fee etc. there cannot be any kind of service there on. In the matter of the admission fee etc. there cannot be question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertain by District Commission under the Consumer Protection Act. Imparting education is not rendering service and therefore this matter cannot be subject matter under the C.P.Act. As held in the decision of  Hon’ble  National commission in the matter of Manu Solanki V/s Vinayaka Mission in 2020(I) CPR 773(NC). Hence, As such the complaint requires to be  dismissed.

10.  Point no.3:- In view of the discussions made above and findings given on point Nos.1 and 2, we proceed to pass the following 

O R D E R

1. The complaint is dismissed. No cost.
2. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 6^th  day of August, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1 :

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.2 & 3 : Nil