BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 06^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. This  complaint has been filed under section 35 of C.P.Act, 2019 (Herein after referred as “ACT”) for the  following reliefs

Direct the OP to refund an admission fee of Rs.50,000/- with Rs.10,000/- for struggle she has faced and such other reliefs.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:

The complainant  got admitted her son Sri Hrishi Govind in the OP institution for the academic year 2017-18 by paying Rs.50,000/-  by means of cheque under receipt dt.12.04.2017. She addressed letter for cancellation of admission to the school, who acknowledged the cancellation of the admission on 14.06.2017.

It is further case of the complainant that despite her best efforts  from 2018 to 2019 and 2020, the OP failed to refund the amount. The refusal to refund of the amount, amounts to deficiency of service. Hence, this complaint.

3. After receipt of notice, OP appears and files version.

OP contends that the complaint is barred by limitation. This Commission has no jurisdiction, in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble National Commission as educational institutions do not come under the purview of C.P.Act, admission fee non refundable. Therefore, OP requests to dismiss the complaint.

4. The complainant filed her affidavit evidence and relies on documents. OP  filed affidavit evidence  and reliefs on one document.

5. No oral arguments is advance by both the sides. However, OP has filed written arguments with citations. Perused documents.

6. The following points arise for our consideration are as under:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
3. What order?

7. Our answer to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:- Negative

      Point no.2:- Negative

      Point No.3:-As per the final order.

REASONS

8. Point Nos.1 and 2: 

Limitation:  It is one of the contentions of the OP that the complaint is barred by limitation. The OP in support of its case relies on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, reported in 2009(V) SCC 121 in the matter between State Bank of India V/s B.S. Agricultural Industries.

9. In order to ascertain the truth or otherwise about a limitation. It is relevant to refer the admitted facts. The complainant got admitted her  son Hrishi Govind in the institution of OP on 12.04.2017 by paying in all Rs.51,500/-.  However, on 14.06.2017 the complainant requested that her son will not continue in the institution of OP and OP  informed the complainant that enrolling  will be effective from 15.07.2017. But the complainant made repeated requests from September 2018 and  31.07.2019 with OP to refund her amount. However only on 31.07.2019 the OP intimated  the complainant that the amount which was given at the time of admission will be adjusted to next year admission fee it made. On 31.07.2019, the OP refused to refund the amount. The complaint came to be filed on 06.03.2021 within  02 years from 31.07.2019. Therefore, complaint is within time and not barred by limitation as stated by OP. Therefore, decision relied by OP is not applicable to the present case in hand.

10. ABOUT JURISDICTION: The OP contends that complainant is not a consumer of the OP. Education institution does not fall under the definitions service provider as per provisions of C.P.Act. The OP relies on the following decision a) 2010(II) SCC 159 in the matter between Maharshi Dayanand University V/s Surjeet Kaur  b) II(2000) CPJ 120 order of the Hon’ble Madya Pradesh State Commission in the matter between Asad Ullah Khan V/s M.C.Motors & others.

11. The 1^st decision is sufficient to decide the point of jurisdiction. In the 1^st decision Hon’ble Supreme Court of India categorically held that the student is neither a consumer nor University rendered any service to students. Accordingly, Hon’ble Supreme court of India took the  view that Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

12. Admittedly, the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- as admission fee and Rs.1,500/- towards other fee to the OP towards admission of her son Hrishi Govind for nursery. OP is an educational institution, under which the complainant took admission for her son. Therefore, such a dispute does not fall under the purview of the C.P.Act. The complainant and her son cannot be construed  as Consumer and educational institution like OP does not fall under the provisions of the C.P. Act. In view of the 1^st decision and admitted facts, this commission has no jurisdiction to decide the controversy between the parties, when this commission has no jurisdiction, there is neither deficiency of service nor complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs.

13. Point no.3:-.  In view of the discussions referred above, complaint requires to be dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following 

O R D E R

1. The complaint is dismissed without costs.
2. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties, and return the spare pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 06^th  day of October, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1 :