KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.208/2019

JUDGEMENT DATED : 25.11.2024

(Against the order in C.C.No.250/2017 on the file of DCDRC, Kozhikode)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Adv. C. Radhakrishnan Nair and Adv. B.A. Krishnakumar)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

(by Adv. P. Priya Pillai and Adv. Boby K. Joseph)

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  :  PRESIDENT

When this matter has been taken for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that since the matter involved in this case is a matter relating to education in the Government Law College, Kozhikode, which is an educational institution recognized by the University, the appellant would not come within the ambit of ‘consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and consequently, the order passed by the District Commission is perfectly justified.  The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“the National Commission” for short) in Manu Solanki and others Vs. Vinayaka Mission University reported in 1 (2020) CPJ 210 (NC) to support his argument.  In paragraph 51 of the Manu Solanki and others (supra), the National Commission held as hereinbelow:-

“51. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion, tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport etc. except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act”. 

2.  The institution involved in this case is admittedly an institution imparting education.  Therefore, in view of the decision of the National Commission in Manu Solanki and others (supra), the said institution would not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.  Consequently, the complaint filed by the appellant is not maintainable. 

3.  The District Commission had correctly followed the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the National Commission and found that the Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as education is not a ‘commodity’ and a student is not a ‘consumer’.  Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service and hence in the matter of education, fee etc. there cannot be any question of deficiency in service.

4.  In the said circumstances, the order passed by the District Commission is liable to be confirmed.  Accordingly, the order passed by the District Commission stands confirmed.

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.  In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

SL