Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/129/2019

Birendra Kumar Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Principal Sree Ayappa Public School - Opp.Party(s)

12 Feb 2022

ORDER

Complainant’s case in short is that his grand daughter Sukirti studied at Shree Ayappa Public School in class I & II thereafter she was admitted to class III by deposit of Rs. 14,810/- Fee but due to unavoidable circumstance she was shifted to Panipat Hariyana with her parents who never attended class nor used Bus service. Further case is that complainant applied on 06.05.2019 for refund of Rs. 14,810/- but inspite of repeated request only Rs. 4500/- was returned by the school management and rest of the amount has not been returned. Hence this case has been filed for order against the O.P. School Management for refund of admission fee with 20% interest and Rs. 20,000/- compensation to the complainant.

2       Written version has been filed by the O.P. mentioning therein that academic Session 2019-20 started on 01.04.2019 in which fee was deposited by the parents of the student on 05.04.2019 including the tuition fee for the month of April and May 2019. Later on complainant applied on 12.04.2019 for issuance of T.C. for class II of the student and requested to manage to issue it so that they could get the student admitted in class III at some other city. Further reply is that as rule except caution money Rs. 4500/- no other money is refundable and it has already been explained to the complainant but to create  pressure this case has been filed by him which is not maintainable.

3       It is admitted fact that the grand daughter of the complainant was ex-student of the O.P. school who studied there in class I and II and thereafter she was admitted in class III.

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