DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __144 _ OF ___2018
DATE OF FILING :_17.12.2018 DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 29.05.2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Samadrita Das, Daughter of Sri Sandip Kumar Das of Sanchaita Apartment, 1A, Diamond Park, D-11, P.O Joka, P.S Haridevpur, Kolkata-104, the petitioner being minor represented by her mother Amita Das as natural guardian , wife of Sri Sandip Das .
O.P/O.Ps : The Principal, Narayana Group of Schools (Maheshtala Branch), Shibrampur Road, P.O Ganipur, Behind Greenfield city, P.S Maheshtala, Kolkata- 141.
_________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
The assurance of O.P i.e the Principal, Narayana Group of Schools , Maheshtala Branch to return the money received by his school from the complainant was not fulfilled and this incident of non-fulfillment of the undertaking given by the O.P has galvanized the complainant to file the instant case under section 12,
C.P Act, 1986 ,praying for refund of the fees paid to the O.P.
Facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.
The complainant is the daughter of Amita Das, who is her mother, and the mother has filed the instant case on behalf of her daughter namely Samadrita Das as the daughter is still minor. The said daughter namely Samadrita Das was admitted to the school of the O.P in Class XI to pursue the course of CBSE board in the year 2017. About three months thereafter, she came to know that the school did not have any affiliation from CBSE Board and ,therefore, she withdrew herself from that school and was admitted to Pathbhaban school, Ballygunge under W.B.C.H.S.E Board on payment of a sum of Rs.60,000/- . Thereafter, on 14.6.2017 ,the father of the complainant filed a petition before the O.P and thereby he prayed for refund of Rs.44000/- which was paid to the O.P during admission of his girl. The mother of the complainant also wrote a letter to the O.P on 18.8.2017 and thereby demanded refund of the amount paid by them to the O.P. The O.P also gave a reply to the complainant and thereby assured them that he would return the amount received from them. But no amount has yet been returned by the O.P to the complainant and, therefore, the complainant has filed the instant case ,praying for return of the said amount, compensation etc. Hence, the case.
Notice of the case has been served upon the O.P as goes the postal website report. The O.P does not appear and, therefore, the case proceeds exparte against him.
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
During exparte hearing , the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit and also other documents which are kept in the record.
DECISION WITH REASONS
The question which arises for consideration now is that whether the complainant is a consumer and whether she is entitled to get back the admission fee which has been paid by her to the O.P.
In the case of Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that education is not a commodity and ,therefore, the educational board or university cannot be held to be a service provider and the complainant who is admitted to the school or university is not a consumer.
That ruling is applicable in the case of a university and a board affiliated to the government; but, not applicable to a private institution which has no affiliation of any government and the university and this has been so held by the Hon’ble National Commission in Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training Vs.
Aashima Jarial, II (2019) CPJ 255 (NC) as follows: “From the above, it can be concluded that the educational institutions, which are imparting education of any kind within the admissible legal frame work of the country can be covered under the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharshi Dayanand University V. Surjeet Kaur (Supra) . In other words, educational institutions covered under UGC , AICTE, State Universities, Central Boards and State Boards etc. can claim immunity from the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for educational services. Moreover, the State Commission has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Budhist Mission Dental College & Hospital V. Bhupes Khurana & Ors., wherein the following has been observed:
“32. The Commission also held that this Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Supra) held as under [ para 118 at page 583]: “… In the case of the university or an educational institution, the nature of the activity is , ex hypothesi, education which is a service to the community. Ergo, the University is an industry…”.
The Commission further held as under:
“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 b y 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”.( Para 14).
In the instant case, the O.P does not have any affiliation from any board or university. Without having any affiliation, he started admitting the students in his school. Complainant was admitted to Class XI for pursuing the CBSE course and it is now found that the O.P institution did not have any affiliation for teaching that course.
It is nothing but an unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. In Budhist Mission Dental College & Hospital Vs. Bhupes Khurana , the similar facts arose and fell into consideration by the Hon’ble Apex court. The Hon’ble Apex Court held therein that it is unfair trade practice on the part of a school or college which admits the students, inspite of the fact that the school or college does not have any proper affiliation. This being the position of law, we feel no hesitation whatsoever to say that the complainant is a consumer and the O.P is the provider of educational service. Attempt on the part of the O.P to convince the students that they have requisite affiliation and that they may get themselves admitted to the school is nothing but an unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P and as such it is also deficiency in service on their part. The complainant is, therefore, entitled to get back the entire amount paid to the O.P Institution. The complainant has also certainly undergone a tremendous harassment and mental agony and ,therefore, the compensation is to be provided to her.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed exparte against the O.P with a cost of Rs.5000/-.
The O.P is directed to refund Rs.44000/- received by him from the complainant , to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant, within a month of this order, failing which, the refund amount, the compensation amount and the cost amount will bear interest @10% p.a till full realization thereof.
Registrar-In-Charge of this Forum is directed to deliver a copy of the judgment free of cost to the parties concerned.
President
I / We agree
Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
