Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/680/2017

Nokesh Saini S/o. Shri Ramesh Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIE Globle Education & Employement - Opp.Party(s)

Moh. Aasif

26 Mar 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 680/2017

 

Nokesh Saini s/o Ramesh Saini r/o Ramgadia ki Dhani, village Pipliavas, Post Saipura, Teh.Jamwaramgarh, Jaipur.

Vs.

Shitij Jain Academy, Head UEI Global Education & Employment, D-24-25, 3^rd floor, Durlabhji Chamber, Prithviraj Road, C-Scheme,Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 26.3.2019

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr. Asif Khan counsel for the appellant

Mr. Ashish Sharma counsel for the respondents

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

2

 

This appeal is filed against the order of the learned District Forum, Jaipur 4^th dated 12.5.2017 whereby the complaint is dismissed on the ground that no relation of service provider and consumer between the parties.

 

The contention of the appellant is that he took admission in BBA- ACM course but instead of this he has been allowed classes only for BBA course. Hence, deficiency was clear and the claim should have been allowed.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that Consumer Forum is not having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and it has rightly been dismissed.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case. The counsel for the appellant has also submitted written arguments.

 

The contention of the appellant is that he took admission in BBA-ACM course but he was allowed classes only for BBA course. The Forum below has held that for lack of jurisdiction

 

3

 

the complaint is not allowed but counsel for the appellant has rightly relied upon 2010 (4) CPR 403 Devendra K Modi Vs. Kishore Singh, judgment passed by Maharashtra State Commission in Appeal No. 16/2957 Aditya Ramasubramanian Vs. Oberoi International School, IV (2016) CPJ 56 (UP) Sudeept Nayan Vs. International Maritime Institute and 2008 (2) 126 CPR Miss Seema Vs. Dr.Rohin Sachdeva where looking to the deficiency of the educational institution complaints were allowed.

 

The opinion of the Maharashtra State Commission is that in Bihar Education Board no straight formula has been held by the apex court that student taking admission in an educational institute can never be a 'consumer' and further it may be held that it may depend upon the facts of the case that whether any deficiency or unfair trade practice has been adopted by the educational institute.

 

In the judgment passed by the apex court in Bihar School Examination Board the institutions were working under the statutory authority/ scheme which is not the case here. The respondents are only private institutions which could not get

 

4

 

the benefit of lying outside the scope of Consumer Protection Act.

 

In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Forum below dated 12.5.2017 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Forum below. The District Forum is directed to decide the matter on merits after giving all the parties opportunity of hearing. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned District Forum on 29.4.2019.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

 

nm