Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/49/2020

Sri Eranna.P S/o late Pathanna, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The world Education center,Reptd by its Authorised signatory. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.S.Prakash

23 Nov 2021

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:28/08/2020

DISPOSED      ON:23/11/2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:49/2020

DATED: 23^rd November 2021

PRESENT: -     Smt. H.N. MEENA. B.A., LL.B., PRESIDENT

 

                        Sri. G. SREEPATHI, B.Com., LL.B.,         MEMBER       

                     Smt. B.H. YASHODA.    B.A., LL.B.,       MEMBER

                    

……COMPLAINANT/S	Sri. Eranna P. S/o Late Pathanna, Aged about 51 Years, Advocate, #751/84, Laxmi Nivas, Gaffar Colony, Hosadurga Town, Chitradurga.  (Rep., by Sri. S. Prakash,   Advocate)
V/S
….OPPOSITE PARTY/S	1.The World Education Center, Repted., by its Authorized Signatory, House of Lord, # 310, 3rd Floor, St Marks Road, Bengaluru-560 001. (Rep., by Sri. B.G. Sangmesh,   Advocate)

BY SRI. G. SREEPATHI, MEMBER.

                                                0RDER

Through this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the complainant prays for an award and Order against the Opponent.  (here in after called as the Op for short) to pay deposited amount of Rs. 50,000/- with 12% interest, Compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards shock and mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- toward cost of proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.

SUMMARY OF THE CASE:-

a)  The complainant contends that he is an Advocate by profession and permanent resident of Hosadurga town, Chitradurga District. The complainant has joined his daughter Punya E S Yadav for M.B.B.S. Course in the Op education center in the year 2019 by paying Rs. 25,000/- through online to Op on 15/07/2019 and Rs. 25,000/- through online on 19/07/2019 in total Rs. 50,000/- for MBBS Course. Due to inconvenience, complainant daughter has not continued MBBS Course in Op education center.

b) He has contended further that, Complainant repeatedly requested the Op to refund of the said deposited amount. For one or the other reason Op has dragon to refund the same Op has failed to return the said amount of deposit to Complainant in-spite of repeated request. With this Complainant faced service deficiency, suffered from shock and mental agony due to unfair trade Practice of Op, for which Op is liable to pay compensation.

c) Further complainant contended that, on 06/06/2020 he got issued legal notice to Op education center and the same was served. After receipt of the same Op replied to notice but not paid the deposited amount. Hence this complaint.

The complainant with list dated 28/08/2020 have submitted and 2 documents.

1. Office copy of Legal notice issued to Op dated 06/06/2020. Ex.A.1.
2. Reply notice dated 16/06/2020, along with Confirmation letter Ex.A.2.

3) The Op has appeared through the learned Advocate and submitted written version by denying claim of the complainant. Further it is contended that, the complainant without making further compliance has come up with this false complaint. That even after explaining about the fee and refund Policy, Admission fee of Rs. 50,000/- was collected during registration along with application form and further Rs. 2,00,000/- for Visa documentation and Op client service charges for all 6 years till student complete her education, said fee will be paid by the student i.e. the complainant once after student receive admission letter from University along with all other documentation for Visa. Thus Op contends to dismiss the complaint.

The Op with list dated 02/9/2021 submitted 7 documents.

1. Notarized copy of Application Form of Punya E S Yadav. Ex.B.1.
2. Certified copy of Application form to the Teaching University, Geomedi LLC dated 15/07/2019 of Punya E S Yadav .Ex.B.2.
3. Admission letter dated 16/07/2019. Ex.B.3.
4. Intimation letter dated 20/11/2019. Ex.B.4.
5. Email conversation copy regarding Punya E S Yadav Confirmation. Ex.B.5.
6. Office copy of reply Notice dated 16/06/2020. Ex.B.6.
7. Postal receipt dated 16/06/2020. Ex.B.7.

4) Both the parties have submitted their affidavit and written arguments. Heard oral arguments as addressed by both the parties through their learned Advocates.

Therefore the question that arise for our consideration in this case are:-

1.  Is there any deficiency of service on the part of Op?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?

Our finding on the above are here under.

1. Point No.1:- In Negative.
2. Point No.2:- As per order.

-:: REASONS ::-

       POINT NO.1:- To avoid repetition and as these points do warrant common course of discussion the same are taken up for consideration at a time.

       It is not in dispute that complainant has paid total Rs.  50,000/- for his daughter’s admission to MBBS course with Op education center on 15/07/2019 and 19/07/2019 Rs. 25,000/- each. The Op well informed about the fees and refund Policy about the Op education center i.e. Rs. 50,000/- for admission fee which was collected during registration along with application form and further Rs. 2,00,000/- for all six Years till student complete her education. Said fee will be paid by student i.e. the complainant once after student receive admission letter from University along with all other documentation for Visa. Thereafter due discussion made with regard to the fee structures and admission procedures, finally the complainant opted to study MBBS in Georgia accordingly as per the Consent of Complainant and his Daughter Op completed admission process accordingly, on 20/11/2019 confirmation letter also received by Op from Teaching University Geomedi LLC. Complainant issued Legal notice to Op on 06/06/2020 and for the same Ops have replied suitably. Accordingly after process of admission procedure complainant issued legal notice that too after a lapse of 10 months.

       As reported in CPR-2017 (2) page No. 516, the Hon’ble National Commission has clearly quoted that subject of education doesn’t come under category of service.

       Further as reported in CPR-July and Aug-2020 part 7 and 8, 2020 (3) CPR page No. 45, the Hon’ble National Commission observed in a case in M.P. Singh Rathore- Petitioner V/s Little Flower Public School and others- Respondents. The important point quoted as per the case is EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT SERVICE PROVIDER AND STUDENTS ARE NOT CONSUMERS. In one more citation of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2020 (3) CPR page No. 84 (NC), it is observed and quoted in a case of University of petroleum and Energy studies- petitioner (UPES)  V/s Anuj Kanwal- Respondents. The important point observed is Educational matters do not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and thus complaint is not maintainable.

       POINT NO.2:- On observing all the above citations of Hon’ble National Commission, we proceed to pass the following:-

-::ORDER::-

       The complaint is hereby dismissed. No cost.

       Supply free copy of this order to both parties.

(Dictated to stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 23^rd day of November 2021)

 

                          

LADY MEMBER                        MEMBER                         PRESIDENT