Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/17/24

Shyam Naranyan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

V. Usha Rani - Opp.Party(s)

R.P. Singh

14 Dec 2022

ORDER

                District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-03-02-2017

Date of final hearing-14-12-2022

 Date of Order-14-12-2022

Case No. 24/2017

    Shyam Narayan Singh

    R/o-Sector-2/B, Qr.No. 1-243, Bokaro Steel City,

    District- Bokaro 827001, Jharkhand

Vs.

1. Smt. V. Usha Rani, Prinicipal, Vizag Defence Academy Education Society, Priyadarshini Junior College, 104 Area Busstop, Visakhapatnam – 530007, Andra Pradesh
2. Sri Uma Shankar, Administrative Incharge, Vizag Defence Academy Education Society, Priyadarshini Junior College, 104 Area Busstop, Visakhapatnam – 530007, Andra Pradesh

R/o- Sector-2/C, Qr.No. 2-136, St-4, Bokaro Steel City,

Bokaro 827001

                             Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

 

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-Judgment-

1. Complainant is absent, non turned up on repeated call. It reveals from the record that this case is pending at the stage of argument in which complainant is absent since long.  Hence as per provision of Section 38 (3) (c ) Consumer Protection Act. 2019 case has been taken up for decision on merit on the basis of materials available on record.

2. Complainant’s case in short is that he got admitted his grandson Avinash Kumar in Priyadarshini Junior College, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam, where he paid Rs. 70,000/- tuition fee and Rs. 13,600/- for uniform on 20.06.2016 and his grandson started to study there but after sometime he was feeling not comfortable there. Further case is that the teachers and students of that very college were torturing the student for which complaint was made to  the Principal having no impact hence said Avinash Kumar left the college with writting a paper that “he is leaving the college with free will and he will never demand Rs. 95,600/- already deposited”.  In this way it is apparent that said student was compelled by the college management to leave the college, hence legal notice was served having no impact, thereafter, this case has been filed with prayer to pass order for refund of Rs. 95,600/- by the college concerned and to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 15000/- as litigation cost.

3. W.S. has been filed by the O.P. No. 1 & 2 mentioning therein that cause of action arose within jurisdiction of Visakhapatnam hence case at Bokaro is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. Further reply is that the student left the college with his free will because he was not liking strict discipline of the college. Further reply is that case is not maintainable.

4.   It is admitted fact that the grandson of the complainant was ex-student of the O.P. school who started to study there as regular student  but thereafter he left the school on his own will.

5.    Since maintainability of the case has been questioned by the O.P. hence it is required to be decided first.  It is relevant to reproduce the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in P.T. Koshy and Ors. vs. Ellen Charitable Trust and Ors Reported in MANU/SC/1324/2012  or  2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC) which is as follow:-

"In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet kaur MANU/SC/0485/2010  or  2010 (11) SCC 159 S.C. 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 kind of service therefore, in matter of admission, fee 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 view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition. Thus, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed."

6.  In light of above principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above noted case as well as in other cases also it is apparent that Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc. there cannot be a kind of service. Therefore, in matter of admission, fee etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency in service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum/Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or 2019. Therefore, this case is not maintainable before this Commission under the Consumer Protection Act. Taking this case with another angle it is apparent from the pleadings that student himself has left the institution with his free will and said Avinash Kumar left the college with writing a paper that “he is leaving the college with free will and he will never demand Rs. 95,600/- already deposited” hence on this score also college concerned cannot be held liable.  

7. In light of above discussion we are of the view that this case is not maintainable and complainant is not entitled to get relief as claimed. Accordingly this case is being dismissed with cost.

 

 

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

                                                                                               

 

 

                                                                               (Baby Kumari)

•