Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Challenge under this Appeal is the Order dated 12-08-2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, South 24 Parganas in C.C. No. 337/2015.

Brief facts of the complaint case are that out of the specific assurance being given by the OPs about making necessary transport arrangement for her daughter, she got her minor daughter admitted in the OP Institution and also paid the requisite fees.  However, later on citing non-viability of making such arrangement, the OPs backed out of their commitment for which her daughter could not attend the class.  The Complainant, against such backdrop, though urged the school authorities to refund the fees, the OPs refused to oblige her, hence the complaint.

It appears that the case was dismissed on maintainability ground at the admission stage itself.

Decision with reasons

On notice, Respondents appear to defend their case. By submitting a WO, it is submitted by the Respondents that once a child is admitted in the school, in no case the school fees is refundable.  If parents after admission decide to take off the child on their own volition, that does not tantamount to any sort of deficiency in service on the part of the educational institution.  Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the present Appeal.

Heard the Ld. Advocates of both sides, perused the material on record, including the citations referred to by the parties. 

It appears that the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that ‘education’ related disputes does not fall under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  We, however, completely disagree with such proposition of the Ld. District Forum.

A seven Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors, reported in AIR 1978 SC 548 at page 583 (pr. 118) observed as under:

"In the case of the University or an educational institution, the nature of activity is, ex hypothesis, education which is a service to the community. Ergo, the University is an industry".

The Respondents have not placed before us any contrary view of any larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  Therefore, the decision pronounced in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra) appears to be the decision of the largest Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter thus far.  Needless to say, thus, the said decision overrides all other contrary view of smaller Benches of the Hon’ble Court.

Further, the Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Bhupesh Khurana And Ors. vs Vishwa Buddha Parishad And Ors., reported in 2000 CTJ 801 (CP) held that “Imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of 'service' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institutions. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. The Complainants had hired the services of the Respondent for consideration so they are consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act”.

In fact, very recently, the Hon’ble National Commission in Krishan Mohan Goyal v. St. Mary’s Academy & Anr., reported in II (2017) CPJ 204 (NC), after deliberating upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (i) Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, reported in IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC); (ii) Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, reported in III (2010) CPJ 19 (SC); and (iii) P.T.Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., in SLP (Civil) No. 22532/2012, has been pleased to observe as under:

“None of the above referred three cases, in my view, would apply to a case where the school is found to be deficient even in providing the basic aid and assistance which any educational institution will provide to a student studying with it.  Deficiency in imparting education which is the core function of an educational institution, in my view is altogether different from rendering such basic help and assistance to the students.  A student may not be the consumer of the school as far as the core function of imparting education or taking examinations is concerned, but, the position would be altogether different where the deficiency on the part of the educational institution is found in an activity altogether different from imparting education, where a consideration is being charged for such an activity on the part of the educational institution.  When a school admits students for the purpose of imparting education to them, it also undertakes to render a reasonably possible help and assistance to them, whenever required by the students  who is in distress….. The educational institution cannot be permitted to wash-away its responsibility to provide such minimal aid and assistance on the pretext that it was not rendering any services to the students”. 

In this case, indisputably, the Respondents declared that they provide car service to students.  There is nothing on record to show that the Respondents set any precondition to provide such service.  Undisputedly, the Respondents received due service charge from the Appellant.  In such circumstances, to our mind, the Respondents could not ethically back out of their promise towards the Appellant citing commercial reason.  It was a clear instance of deficiency in service on their part.

Since the Appellant got her daughter admitted in the institution of the Respondents out of her blind faith in the sincerity of purpose of the Respondents that they would walk the talk to arrange necessary transportation arrangement for her daughter and since such last minute volte face of the Respondents put everything in disarray/jeopardy, she was totally justified seeking refund of the entire fee deposited for the purpose of admission of her daughter.    

Given that the Respondents themselves are wholly responsible for compelling the Appellant to take such unfortunate decision, in our considered opinion, the Respondents cannot deny refunding the money citing non-refund clause. 

We, thus, allow the Appeal.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That the Appeal stands allowed on contest with cost for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-.  Respondents are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs. 15,481/- to the Appellant together with simple interest on the sum of Rs. 15,481/- from the date of filing of the complaint before the Ld. District Forum till full and final payment is made.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.