DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW
CASE No.422 of 2013
Sri Vijay Kumar Mishra,
S/o Sri C.L. Mishra,
R/o 491/7, Munshiganj,
Daliganj, Lucknow.
……Complainant
Versus
The Principal,
Loreto Convent Intermediate College,
M.G. Marg, Lucknow.
.......Opp. Party
Present:-
Sri Vijai Varma, President.
Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.
JUDGMENT
This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OP for refund of Rs.19,560.00 with 12% interest and for compensation etc.
The case in brief of the Complainant is that his daughter appeared in ICSE 2012 examination in the year 2012 and its result was expected in the month of May, 2012. In the month of April, 2012 the OP has asked the Complainant and his daughter to take provisional admission in class XI and accordingly the Complainant alongwith his daughter have filled up the admission form by opting science group subjects of the choice of daughter as well as of the Complainant. The OP has asked the Complainant to deposit the fee provisionally of humanities group and promised to grant regular admission in science subjects on which the Complainant had deposited fee of Rs.19,560.00 on 16.04.2012.The Complainant was compelled to deposit the fee for two terms at a time. After declaration of result when the daughter of the Complainant went to OP to join the class in science group the OP had asked
-2-
to join humanities group and not allowed her for science group in spite of earlier assurance. The Complainant had no option but to seek admission of her daughter in some other institutions. Through letters dated 24.07.2012 and 01.11.2012 the Complainant has demanded the refund of fees but the OP has paid no heed, hence this complaint.
The OP has filed the WS wherein it is mainly submitted that the daughter of the Complainant after appearing for class X examination had applied for provisional admission in class XI for the session 2012-13 with the OP in the month of April, 2012. She was given provisional admission in class XI with Humanities Stream by the college. All the requirements, terms and conditions related to the admission procedure in the college was clearly communicated to the applicant students as well as their parents before taking admission. The Complainant during the course of admission procedure had deposited a fee of Rs.19,560.00 as fee for the first and second quarter on 16.04.2012. The OP clearly informed all the students as well as the parents vide notice dated 24.01.2012 that admission to class XI will be provisional till the results of the ICSE examination of March 2012 are declared. It was also clearly informed that provisional admission is given to each candidate as per their marks obtained in classes IX and X. After the declaration of the ICSE results the Complainant’s daughter could not be given admission in the science stream as per the eligibility requirement and it was communicated to the student as well as the parents. The fee regulations for 2012-13 clearly informed the candidates as well as their parents that in case of withdrawal of candidate after admission any request for fee refund will not be entertained. The Complainant’s daughter had got better subject combination of her choice in another institution and therefore the Complainant’s daughter was unwilling to continue with her studies in class XI at the college. Subsequently the Complainant’s daughter decided to
-3-
leave the college to pursue her studies and had thereafter taken admission in another institution. In the said admission form it is clearly mentioned that the provisional admission will not be taken into consideration once the ICSE results are out and it was also clearly provided “Fee will not be refunded.” In spite of the entire rules, regulations and terms and conditions of the admission process having been clearly communicated to the Complainant, the Complainant demanded that the college should refund the admission fee which was in clear violation of the undertaking given by the Complainant at the time of taking admission. The complaint should be dismissed and cost should be awarded in favour of the OP.
Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.
In P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs Ellen Charitable Trust and Ors. it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “In Maharshi Dayanand University Vs Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 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 question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.” In III (2014) CPJ 120 (NC) Regional Institute of Cooperative Management Vs Naveen Kumar Chaudhary & others it has been held by the Hon’ble NCDRC that the educational institution has not provided any kind of service. Also in the case decided by the Hon’ble SCDRC, U.P. in Appeal No.1332/11 MITC & others Vs Kumari Pushpa Bisht and other appeals on 22.08.2014 it has been held that the Complainants/students are not the consumers of the OP and that the education does not come within the purview of the commodity and OP is not a service provider, hence there is no question of deficiency of service,
-4-
therefore the Complainants are not entitled to any relief from the Forum. On the basis of the aforesaid judgments, it is abundantly clear that the OP being an educational institution, is not a service provider in a case involving fees etc. and therefore this complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act in this Forum. Therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed at this stage itself. However, the Complainant can seek remedy before the appropriate Forum or Civil Court as per law.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
The parties to bear their own costs.
(Anju Awasthy) (Vijai Varma)
Member President
Dated: 14 August, 2015
