Sri Rajesh Das,

S/O. Lt. Rebati Mohan Das,

C/O. Sri Paresh Chandra Baidya,

Resident of Nabin Shanti Sudhalaya (2nd Floor), near Jagannath Bari, Palace Compound, P.O. Agartala, Pin-799001, P.S.- West Agartala, Dist.-West Tripura.

 

Vrs.

1. The Principal Sri Sri Ravisankar Vidhya Mandhir, Patunagar, P.O.-Patunagar, Pin-799009, P.S.-Airport, Dist.-West Tripura, Agartala. 

2. The Secretary, 

Central Board of Secondary Education, “Shiksha Kendra”-2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092. 

The Director, Elementary Education Department, Government of Tripura, Shiksha Bhawan, P.O.-Agartala, Pin- 799001, Dist.-West Tripura, Agartala.

  No step from the side of the Complainant. 

       An Advocate hazira is filed by  Mr. P. Sahu, Additional Government Pleader.                                  

On earlier occasion we heard both sides on the question of maintainability of the complaint and today was fixed for passing necessary order. 

Hence, order is passed. 

In brief the Complainant's case is that the Complainant is the father of Master Arnab Das, who got admission in Sri Sri Ravisankar Vidhya Mandhir, Patunagar, Agartala Tripura in Class-I, during the academic session 2020-21. At the time of admission the Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.16,650/- as one time fees for the academic session. Thereafter, in view of the COVID-19 situation the Government of Tripura, has taken the decision to lockdown the State functioning & as a result all categories of schools are directed to remain closed from 17/03/2020 to 31/03/2020. The school also remained closed till filing of the complaint. The students are advised to stay in their own homes as a measure of safety. During this period, neither the educational activities nor the transportation of services were afforded to his son. Thereafter also the school authority has started sending bills through Mobile Apps for making payment of fees for succeeding months. It is alleged that imparting of education by the educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of “Service” as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Fees are paid for service to render by way of imparting education by the educational institution. If there is no render of service, question of payment of fees would not arise.   

Hence, the Complainant file this complaint challenging the activities of the school authority making them party including others. 

 

The O.Ps. including the school authority appeared and challenged the maintainability of the proceedings. 

 

At the time of hearing Learned Counsel Mr. Joydeep Paul appearing for the O.P. No.1 submitted that it is settled law which is decided by the Apex Court that the student is not a consumer and as such the complaint is not maintainable. 

Learned Advocate Mr. T. D. Majumder appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2 submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bihar School examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha reported in (2009) 8 SSC 483 and in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur reported in (2010) (11) SCC 159 decided that student is not a consumer. 

 

So this Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction and as such complaint is not maintainable. 

Learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. P. Sahu also appeared on behalf of the O.P. No.3 and he also adopted the submission of the Counsels of the O.P. Nos.2&3. 

The Complainant himself submitted that the matter is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. So at this stage we can not say that student is not a consumer. 

We have meticulously gone through the citations. Recently, the Hon'ble National Commission in a case decided that the student is not a consumer and educational institution can not be a “Service Provider” under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Hon'ble National Commission also relied upon the above decisions of the Apex Court. 

Since, it is settled law that student is not a consumer as per definition of the Consumer Protection Act, we are of the opinion that this complaint petition is not maintainable in law. 

Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. 

Supply copy of the order free of cost to both the parties.