Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/393

GANGARAM RATHORE - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIDHYA BHAWAN PUBLIC SCHOOL - Opp.Party(s)

02 Jan 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 393 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 29.02.2016 passed in C.C.No.246/2015 by the District Commission, Guna)

                                                    

GANGARAM RATHORE.                                                                                …          APPELLANT.

 

Versus

                 

VIDYA BHAWAN PUBLIC SCHOOL, GUNA.                                                    …         RESPONDENT.

                                                                                                          

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                 :      ACTINIG PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY         :       MEMBER 

                  

 

                                      O R D E R

02.01.2024

 

            Shri S. K. Saxena learned counsel for the appellant.

            None for the respondent.

           

 

As per A. K. Tiwari : 

                        The complainant/appellant being dissatisfied with the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guna (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.246/2015 whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed, has filed this appeal.

2.                Heard. Perused the record.

3.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission has committed grave error in dismissing the complaint. The complainant’s son who was a regular student of the opposite party/respondent school passed in second class in the academic year 2014-

-2-

15. It is alleged that on 13.04.2015 when he applied for transfer certificate, he was forced to pay the fee for the next session i.e. 2015-16 for issuance of transfer certificate. It is alleged that after depositing the fee for next session, the opposite party/respondent school issued Transfer Certificate which amounts to deficiency in service. He argued that the complaint filed by him alleging deficiency in service against opposite party-school has been wrongly dismissed the District Commission. He therefore prayed that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 

4.                Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the appeal memo, impugned order and the record, we find that the defense of the opposite party-school before the District Commission was that the complainant/appellant ought to have applied for Transfer certificate till 15.02.2015 as per rules and regulations of the school to which he was well aware. Since he did not apply till 15.02.2015 failing which his son was given admission in the next session 2015-2016 starting from April-2015. He applied for transfer certificate on 13.04.2015 when the next session has already been started and his son was already given admission in the next class therefore he was asked to deposit the fee for the next session.

5.                The District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that as per circular R-1, the complainant ought to have applied for transfer

-3-

certificate till 15.02.2015 which the complainant did not comply with. He applied for transfer certificate on 13.04.2015, deposited fee on 16.04.2015 and transfer certificate was issued on 17.04.2015. It is further held that the complainant did not take any objection at the time of depositing the fee or deposited the fee under protest.

6.                Be that as it may. There is preliminary issue involved in the matter that whether educational institutions providing education and other activities to the students come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not?

7.                Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Manu Solanki & Others Vs Vinayak Mission University and other connected cases, I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC) has held that “Educational matters do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore the complaint filed by the complainant/student is not maintainable. Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain such complaints” Same view has been taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Rai Technology University Vs Prakurthi N. V. I (2023) CPJ 154 (NC).

7.                The law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in Manu Solanki (supra) is fully applicable in the present matter and the Educational Institute does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it is not rendering any service.

-4-

8.                In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that prima facie, the complaint is not maintainable and thus we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the District Commission dismissing the complaint. It is hereby affirmed.

9.                In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

                     (A. K. Tiwari)               (Dr. Srikant Pandey)       

               Acting President                       Member