Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/39/2021

Sangita Bhagat - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Principal Shree Ayyappa Public School - Opp.Party(s)

Rajeev Ranjan

13 Sep 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-21-09-2021

Date of final hearing-13-09-2023

 Date of Order-13-09-2023

Case No. 39/2021

Sangita Bhagat W/o Biswanath Prasad Bhagat

R/o Sasadhar Ganguli Road, Raja Bandh Para, New Colony, Purulia, W.B. and QR.no. 2279, Sector-4/D, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, Jharkhand

                                      Vrs.

The Principal Shree Ayyappa Public School,

Sector-5, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro

Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-:Order:-

1.      Complainant’s case in short is that his son Biswadeep Bhagat took admission in Shree Ayappa Public School in class XI by deposit of Fee etc. Rs. 47,779/-  but due to unavoidable circumstance he was shifted to Chinmaya Vidyalaya, Sector-V, B.S.City, Bokaro. Further case is that complainant applied for refund of Rs. 47,779/- but inspite of repeated requests only Rs. 5000/- was offered to be returned by the school management to which complainant refused to receive and rest of the amount was not to be returned. Hence this case has been filed for order against the O.P. School Management for refund of admission fee with 7% interest and Rs. 1,00,000/- compensation to the complainant.

2       Written version has been filed by the O.P. mentioning therein that academic Session 2018-19 started on 01.04.2018 in which fee was deposited by the parents of the student including the tuition fee. Later on complainant applied on 19.06.2018  for refund of fee etc. Further reply is that as per norms of the institution fee was not refundable hence it has not been returned.  Further reply is that case is not maintainable before this Commission. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the case.

5. Point for determination is whether case is maintainable and if yes then whether complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed.       

4    Since maintainability of the case has been questioned by the O.P. hence it is required to be decided first.  It is relevant to reproduce the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in P.T. Koshy and Ors. vs. Ellen Charitable Trust and Ors Reported in MANU/SC/1324/2012  or  2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC) which is as follow:-

 

"In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet kaur MANU/SC/0485/2010  or  2010 (11) SCC 159 S.C. wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc. there cannot be a kind of service therefore, in matter of admission, fee etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition. Thus, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed."

5.      On behalf of the petitioner reliance has been placed on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.T. Chandigarah passed in F.A. No. A/15/2017 decided on 18.01.2017. In our view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above noted cases are having binding effect upon this Commission hence the decision of Hon’ble State Commission in above noted Appeal is not helpful for the complainant.

6.                In light of above principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above noted case as well as in other cases also it is apparent that Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc. there cannot be a kind of service therefore, in matter of admission, fee etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

7.      Therefore, this case is not maintainable before this Commission under the Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly it is being dismissed.

 

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

 

 

                                                                     (Baby Kumari)

                                                                                       Member