Sri Rana Pratap Nath Bhaumik,

S/O- Sri Usha Ranjan Nath Bhaumik,

Radhamadhav Sarani, 

Dhaleswar, Agartala, West Tripura.

 

Vrs.

 

1.  The Principal Swami Dhananjoy Das,

     Kathia Baba Mission School, 

Patunagar, Agartala, West Tripura.

 

2. The Secretary,

Central Borad of Secondary Education, Shiksha Kendra -2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi.

 

3. The Director, 

Secondary Education Department, Govt. of Tripua, Shiksha Bhawan, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

Complainant is absent.

An advocate Hazira is filed by O.P. No.1.

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

Hence, order is passed.

In brief the complainant's case is that the complainant have one daughter and one son namely Ms. Rittika Nath Bhaumik and Rishab Nath Bhaumik who were student of Class-IX during academic session 2019-20 in the school of respondent no.1 and now have been promoted to Class-X. The school is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education. As per notification issued by the  Govt. of Tripura the school remained closed from 17.03.2020 to 31.03.2020 due to the situation arisen out of Covid-19. The students are advised to stay in their own homes for a measure of safety. Ultimately Home Secretary, Govt. of India affirmed the Lockdown Curfew  all over India from 25th March 2020 to 14th April, 2020. Later on the lockdown was extended up to 17th  May, 2020. It is on record that during the period from 17.03.2020 to 31.03.2020 neither the curriculum activities nor the transportation services were rendered to the students by the respondent school but by prefixing the condition of late fee the respondent school compelled the complainant to make payment of the school fee and transportation charges for that period. Hence, the act of charging of fees for different  categories for the period when the school was closed due to lockdown decision of the Govt. amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent school. Complainant further wants to submit that imparting of education by the educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of ''Service'' as defined under Section of 2(I) (o) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fees would not arise. Mainly he challenged the activities of the school authority for taking fees during the lock down period for his daughter and son and the complaint petition is filed U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 making party, the Principal Swami Dhananjay Das, Kathia Baba Mission School, Putunagar, (2) The Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi and (3) The Director Secondary Education, Govt. of Tripura. After admission of the complaint notices were issued upon the respondent and the respondents contested the complaint by filing written reply except respondent no.3. In their written reply both the respondent no.1 and 2 challenges the complaint and raised the question of maintainability. 

Accordingly, we heard both the parties on the last occasion. 

We have heard the complainant himself as well Mr. Ranendra Kr. Purkayastha, Authorized Representative of respondent no.1 and also Learned Advocate Mr. Paramartha Datta for respondent no.1 & Learned Advocate Mr. Tapas Datta Majumder for respondent no.2, the secretary, CBSC. 

At the time of argument Mr. Majumder submitted that a student can not be a consumer. So this Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and as such the complaint is not maintainable. In support of his submission he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court, Bihar School examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha reported in (2009) 8 SSC 483. The same submission is also made by Mr. Ranendra Kumar Purkayastha as well as Learned Advocate Mr. Paramartha Datta. Mr. Datta in support of his submission relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur reported in (2010) (11) SCC 159.

Mr. Datta submitted that recently PIL was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking directions to the HRD Ministry on waiver of fees for primary level students and also a waiver of extra fees charged under different heads by schools during pandemic situation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court comprising the bench of Justice Ashok Bhusan and R. Subhash Reddy dismissed the PIL, but granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Courts.

On the other hand the complainant Mr. Rana Pratap Nath Bhaumik submitted that imparting of education by educational institution for consideration falls under the  definition of ''Service'' as defined under Section 2 (I) (o) as per C.P. Act, 1986. He also submitted that fees for service is to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institution. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fees would not arise and he vehemently opposed the submission of the other side. He also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court which is downloaded from the internet. The decision was in connection with Civil appeal No. 9961-9962 of 2017 and Civil Appeal No.9959-9960 of 2017. 

We have meticulously gone through all the citations. The citation of the complainant is not applicable in the instant complaint as we find that the facts of the case are not similar. The Hon'ble Apex Court settled the matter- whether a student is a consumer or not, whether imparting education falls under the subject matter of trade and commerce. In Bihar School examination Board's case (supra) at Para 13 its observation is that Board   is not a ''Service Provider'' and a student who takes an Examination is not a ''Consumer'' and secondly complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board. As per settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court is that every decision of Apex Court is not the precedent. A decision is a precedent on its own facts. Each case presents its own features. It is not everything said by a judge while giving a judgment that constitutes a precedent. What is the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observations found therein nor what logically flows from the various observations made in the judgment. The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent. A case is precedent and binding for what it explicitly decides and no more. A close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice. 

From the decision of Maharshi Dayanand University case (Supra) we find that Hon'ble Apex Court at para- 22 observed that ''the respondent as a student is neither a consumer nor as the appellant rendering any service.'' So, we have considered the citations of both sides. Ultimately we find that a student can not be treated as a Consumer and if so the  instant complaint is not maintainable. 

Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. 

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