ORDER                                                                            Date:  14-01-2017 

 Manju Bala Sharma, Member

1. Instant complaint has been filed by complainant on 13-10-2014 against the OP  stating therein that complainant had got admission in the institute of OP on the assurances of the OP’s representatives that OP’s institute provides the personal attention to every individual aspirant and would also provide the best environment for studies.  On the above said promise and assurances the complainant confirmed his admission on 16th of July, 2014 and  paid  a sum of Rs. 1,21,000/- vide demand draft No. 840633, drawn on Bank of Baroda and  complainant was given admission number-883427 and token number-GS-CSA. It is further stated that the classes for General Studies were to start from 26th of July, 2014, 7days a week and for CSAT from 28th of July, 2014, 3days a week. The complainant had joined the classes from 30th of July, 2014 and when he reached there he was shocked to find that the seating hall was packed to such an extent that some students were sitting at the other side of the closed entrance door which could not be opened due to the sitting of the students who had taken extra chairs from outside of  the class room to sit in the class and complainant orally complained about the same to the management official of OP who bluntly told that it is the way how all coaching institutes impart coaching and we have been coaching so many students who have never complained and was also told by OP to make up mind whether or not he is to continue the coaching. It is further stated that even after facing such a problem on the very first day the complainant tried to adjust by regularly reaching the coaching center half an hour before the time just to get a proper seat for the next 5 days but was forced to decide on quitting the coaching as there was no proper space even to take down the notes as seats were so congested.  The complainant decided to quit the coaching for which he was told to give an application in which he gave the reasons for quitting the coaching and he  was told that the process would take at least three days to return the fees he had paid for the coaching. He was told to hand over his ID card and fees receipt with the application. The complainant went to the OP coaching institute after 3 days but  he was asked to come the next day as the cheque was not signed. On the next day a cheque of Rs.96800/-  drawn on Axis Bank Ltd  was given to the complainant which was 20% less than the actual amount paid by the complainant. The complainant protested to the management staff and  he was simply told that it is the policy of coaching institute. The complainant further stated that OP did not provide any study material or any other written material to him which the coaching institute provides to their students, apart from the fact that complainant attended a  total number of 6 days classes for G.S. and 3 days classes for CSAT which were generally introductory in nature and the way how to prepare and what is the syllabus.  Legal notice dated 08.09.2014 was sent to OP which was duly received by it but OP did not care to reply the same pleading deficiency in services on the part of OP the complainant prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs.24,200/- which they had deducted from the total amount of Rs.1,21,000/-.  ,pay  legal expenses of

Rs. 15000/-  , Rs. 1 lacs as compensation for the harassment, mental and physical torture to the complainant.

2. Notice was issued to OP who entered appearance and filed an application under order VII rule 11 CPC read  with section 151 CPC stating therein that OP is not a legal entity as it is the  proprietorship concern of Shri Arjun Ravindran and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint as the Complainant is neither the consumer nor the educational services rendered by the OP is a commodity. It is further submitted that procedure for getting admission with OP is online and the  same was started on  02.07.2014 for which the complainant had  applied immediately and fees was deposited by him.  It was further stated that it was specifically mentioned on the receipt of payment that “FEE PAID WILL NOT BE REFUNDED”. OP further stated that going against its own policy,  a refund of Rs. 96,800/- (Rupees ninety six thousand eight hundred only) i.e. 80% tuition fees to the complainant  has been made by the OP  thereby suffering financial loss of revenue for one seat in the entire batch and prayed that the present complaint be dismissed/rejected.
3. Vide order dated 1-9-2016 OP was directed to file its written statement and thereafter application under order VII rule 11will be considered.  Written statement was filed admitting the fact that complainant took admission in OP’s institute and paid a fee of Rs. 1,21,000/- and upon asking for cancellation for his admission, OP ,going against his policy refunded a sum of Rs. 96,800/- and denied all the allegations contained in the complaint. 
4.  In reply to the application under order VII rule 11 CPC  complainant denied the contention of the OP that this forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint as the same falls under the category of educational institutions and  reiterated the facts stated in the complaint
5. We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP on the application U/o VII Rule 11 and gone through the record.
6. The prayer of the complainant is to refund the amount of Rs. 24,200/-along with compensation and legal fees on the ground that there was no proper space to take down the notes and the seats were so congested just to accommodate many students so that OP could maximize its profit. Learned counsel for the OP has argued that OP does not fall under the category of educational  institution as OP is not a legal entity and is proprietorship concern hence complainant is neither a consumer nor the educational services rendered by the OP is a commodity. He also argued that in the receipt of payment fee it is specifically mentioned that the fee paid will not be refunded but despite this fact complainant demanded refund  of fee and asked for compensation of his admission and  , OP , going against its policy, refunded 80 % of the total  fees to the complainant after deducting reasonable charges thereby suffering financial loss of revenue for one seat in the entire batch.  Complaints relating to refund of fees  with interest and compensation against schools, colleges, educational institutions alleging deficiency in services and resorting to unfair trade practice are very common.  In some cases, the   educational institutions refunds the fees. Shall the institute refund the fees? These questions  are decided by the  Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the questions as to whether education is a ‘service’ and  whether student is a ‘consumer’   within the meaning of 2 (i) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 has held in P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 22532 of 2012,  wherein the Hon’ble Apex court took the following view:-

In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi (Dayanand University v/s Surjeet Kaur, MANU/SC/0485/2010 (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”.

7. In a recent judgment  in  Civil Appeal No. 697 of 2014, titled Indian Institute of Bank & Finance (IIBF) Vs. Mukul Srivastava, dated 17.01.2014,  the Hon’ble Apex Court has referred to the judgments reported in Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, 2009 (8) SCC 483,  Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159 and Jagmitter Sain Bhagat Vs. Director,  Health Services & Ors, 2013 (10) SCC 136, held  that the student,  under such circumstances,  is not  a ‘consumer’.  
8. In view  of  the above discussion we are of the considered opinion that the complainant being a ‘student’ is not a ‘consumer’ and OP is not provided any services within the meaning of  section 2 (i) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The application under order VII rule 11 CPC  filed by OP is allowed and the complaint therefore fails and is hereby dismissed.
9. Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned  to Record Room. 

Announced on this   ………………