DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : BHADRAK.
Dated the 11th day of July, 2022
C. D. Case No. 03 / 2022
Present 1. ShriShibaPrasad Mohanty, President
Sri Manoj Kumar Behera, S/o:-SanthaCharanBehera,
At:- Manipur, Po:- Haladia, P.S.:- Bansada, Block:- Chandbali,
Dist:-Bhadrak, Odisha, Pin-756 129, Mob. No. 80173 64401,
Aadhaar No. 6386 8303 3704. . . . . . Complainant.
Versus.
The Principal of Royal Degree College, Bhadrak,
Address:- At: Royal Nagar, Gelpur, Bhadrak,
Principal/Director Contact No: 9439900227/9439900228
DEO Contact No: 7683904465,
Principal/Director E-Mail Id: royal . . . . . . Opposite Party.
Counsel For Complainant : In person
For O.P : Ex- Parte.
Date of hearing 07.07.2022
Date of Order : 11.07.2022
SRI SHIBA PRASAD MOHANTY, PRESIDENT. :
This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service against the O.P.
The complainant is a senior citizen the matter involved is admission & refund of admission fees of a meritorious science student who is the younger brother of the complainant..
The facts in brief as stated by the Complainant in his complaint are to the effect that the present complainant was the student of B.Sc. Computer Science of Royal Degree College, Bhadrak (O.P). Being influenced by the attractive promises of the college authorities , complainant had taken admission. At the time of admission he was convinced by the college management that, if the student will taketransfer, after a minimal deduction the same amount will be refunded. Due to lack of faculties and infrastructures complaint wascompelled to take transfer certificate from the college. After transfer from that college, the O.P did not refund his admission fees amounting to Rs.5,000/-. As such the complainant files this case seeking direction of the commission against O.P to refund the admission fees along with cost &compensation.
Notice was issued to O.P on Regd. post and O.P was also intimated on telephonic message to appear and file w/v but O.P did not care to the proceedings of the commission under C.P Act.As such he has been set ex parte on 03.06.2022.
Now the core issue is whether the educational institution is negligent in rendering service & Does Education fall under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act?
The answer to this question can be found with the help of several previous judgments. The judgment passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as NCDRC) in the case of ‘Bhupesh Khurana And Ors. Vs Vishwa Buddha Parishad And Ors’(3) related to the university publishing falsely in its prospectus of being affiliated to the Dental Council of India and being governed by the Magadha university, Patna, Bihar whereas it was to the contrary in reality. The students who had taken part in the university under the impression of it being affiliated to the DCI and Magadha University, felt cheated and filed a case. The court in this case held that the act of imparting education by an educational institute comes under the definition of service as per the ‘Consumer Protection Act’. Had there been no service provided, there would have been no consideration paid on part of the student.
In another case of S.D. Seth Mathews AndAnr. Vs Mahatama Gandhi University,Kerela(4) , which dealt with the university cancelling the private registration of a pre-degree certificate to the complainant after two years of registration as it didn’t recognize the qualifying examination i.e. SSLC(compartmental), Tamil Nadu. This hassle caused a lot of inconvenience to the complainant as his two years were lost in preparations and hence filed a case demanding damages against this casual approach of the university and also contending that there was a deficiency in services by the university.
Deficiency is defined under the section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act as – "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
The NCDRC took cognizance of the decision passed in BhupeshKhurana case the act of the university of being imperfect in their manner of performance of rejecting the pre-degree certificate of a candidate after two years of his registration does come under deficiency in performance of duties.
Similarly, in the case of SonalMatapurkar V. Niglingappa Institute(5) , in which a dental institute admitted student over and above the student admission capacity and were then not allowed to take the university examinations. The NCDRC held in this case that it was deficiency in administration on behalf of the institute and ruled in favor of the defendant.
Relief against coaching centers and tuition centers
Private coaching centers which don’t come under ambit of University Grants Commission and are not governed by any state or central education board but can be sued for deficiency in their teaching standards, if found. In the case of FIIT JEE vs Dr. MinalRathi, (6) the State consumer Dispute Redressal Commission of Delhi held that even though coaching centers are not statutory bodies but they prepare students for competitive exams by charging hefty fees but still don’t guarantee admissions into IITs or NITs and hence the students who pay this hefty fees will be considered as ‘consumers’ and coaching centers as ‘service providers’ under Consumer Protection Act. Further, in the case of Allen Career Institute vs Anil Kumar Sharma(7) , the State Consumer Redressal Forum, Chandigarh ruled that the act of taking entire course’s fees at one go and then not returning back even a single penny on withdrawal of the child amounts to unfair trade practice. Judgment to the similar effect has also been passed in the case of Jaipreet Singh Kaushal vs FiitJee Limited &Anr.(8)
In this case due to lack of faculties and infrastructures complainant left the institution. This amounts unfair trade practice by the O.P. As such in our considered view the O.P is negligent in rendering service to his student.Since November 2001 the student has been compelled to take transfer and asking for refund of his admission fees, but O.P is not taking any heeds to his grievances. Failure on the part of the O.P to make refund within this period amounts negligence & deficiency in service. As such in this O.P is to be compensated with not less that Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) Only.
O R D E R
The complaint be and the same is allowed ex parte againstO.P. The O.P is here by directed to refund a sum ofRs.5,000 (rupees five thousand only) to the complainant towards the fees deposited by the complainant & to pay Rs.10000/- (Ten thousand ) only towards compensation for mental agony & harassment sustained by complainant as well as to pay Rs.1000/- towards the cost of litigation within one month henceforth,failing which the O.P is to pay interest on the aforesaid amount @ of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of payment.
This order is pronounced in the open Court on this the 11th day of July 2022under my hand and seal of the Commission.
