PER HON'BLE MR. K.M. LAWANDE MEMBER
1. Being aggrieved by the judgement and order of District Consumer Redressal Forum , Chandrapur in Consumer Complaint No.171/2018 ,Dt.30/07/2019 ,the appellant Rajeev Gandhi College of Engineering, Research and Technology,chandrapur has filed this appeal.The appellant is the opponent and the respondent Viplav Gajanan Raut is the complainant in the Consumer Complaint. The parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the consumer complaint and the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum is referred to as District Forum for the sake of convenience.
2. It is the case of complaint that he was the student of BE Mechanical four years degree course, divided in eight semesters in op Engineering College from 15/07/ 2015.He paid Rs.1,08,300/- towards the fees of first two semesters on 12/09/2015 by to training educational loan. He further paid Rs 1,16,580/-for 3rd and 4 semesters. However, unfortunately he could not clear the third and fourth semesters and was disqualified for getting admission to fifth and 6th semesters. He therefore decided to leave the degree course and to join another course. Therefore, he requested to opponent Engineering College for the Transfer certificate (TC) .It is contended that the opponent college initially refused to issue (TC) to him initially. However, shown readiness to supply the TC on the condition that complainant deposits fees for 5th and 6th semesters. Though, the complainant was not eligible for admission to 5th and 6th semester ,demand of fees for 5th and 6th semester by the opponent is illegal. Being there no option before , he deposited the amount of Rs. 50,000/- with the opponent Engineering College on 05/08/2018 and obtained the Transfer Certificate.he issued notice to the opponent college to refund the fees of rupees 50000 illegally record from him however the opponent college did not reply . Therefore ,the complainant filed the consumer complaint seeking the directions of the District Commission to opponent to refund the fees of Rs 50,000/- with 12 percent interest .Directions are also sought for compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards physical and mental sgony and Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of litigation.
3. The opponent submitted written statement before the District Forum and denied the rival allegations. It is contended that the complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer envisaged in Consumer Protection Act. It is admitted that the complainant secured admission to 4 year degree course of Mechanical Engineering in their college for the year 2015-16 through Management quota. It is contended that the admission can be cancelled only in first year and in case the student cancels his admission thereafter, he has to deposit the whole fees of the remaining semesters. It is contended that the vacancy of second year can be filled from the students completing diploma courses, who are expected to join the second year and that is not the case with other years. It is contended that the college is running on no grant basis and all the expenses to run the college and salaries of the staff is met from the fees collected from the students. It is contended that the opponent college is established under the Maharashtra public University Act 2016 and liable to reply to AICTE, DTE Mumbai and Gondwana University. The opponent college is governed as per the rules set up by the director of Technical Education Government of Maharashtra.
It is also contended that complainant himself moved an application for permission to take provisional admission for fifth semester as his result of revaluation of 3rd and 4th semester was awaited. He was admitted provisionally on his request only. On his own ,he has paid the fees of Rs.50,000/- and further agreed to pay the balance fee of Rs.1,66,000/- later. He applied for Transfer Certificate. Taking into consideration of his loss of educational year, the opponent issued him the Transfer Certificate. There is no deficiency on their part and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The District Forum allowed the complaint partly and directed to the opponent Engineering College to refund the amount of Rs. 50,000/- to complainant with 9% interest p.a. from 24/10 /2018 till realisation .The District Forum further directed opponent to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental and physical harassment and also to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgement and order of District Forum, the opponent Engineering College has filed this appeal.
6. Ld.Advocate N.A.Chauhan appeared for the oppenent /appellant .Ld.Advocate S. R .Gajbhiye appeared for the complainant/respondent.
7. After respective submissions of the parties, following points arose for our determination. We have noted them and answered them for the reasons to follow.
Points Answers
(i)Whether the complainant establish that he is the consumer
of the opponent? In Negative
(ii) Whether there requires interference in the order of
district forum? In Affirmative
(iii)What order? As per final order
REASONING
Points 1, 2 and 3
REASONING
8. Ld Advocate Shri N.A.Chauhan argued for the opponent on the line of written statement submitted to the District Forum. It is further argued that the complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer section 2(1)d of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is contended that education is not the commodity and student is not the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
To support his contention that complainant is not consumer ,the ld advocate relied upon the following citations.
(i) National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in Manu Solanki abd ors Vs Vinayaka Mission University (formerly known as Vinayaka Missions Research Foundation deemed University) , Consumer Complaint 261/2012 and other consumer complaints and Revision Petitions decided on 20/01/2020 wherein the Hon National Commission held in para 51 of the judgment that ,
Para 51-“In view of the foregoing discussion , we are of the considered opinion that the institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre- admission as well as post -admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities ,swimming ,sport ,etc. except Coaching Institutions ,will,therefore, not covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act,1986.”
It is further argued that, the district Commission failed to look into this legal aspect while deciding the consumer complaint and therefore the judgment and order of the district forum requires intervention and quashing and setting it aside by allowing the appeal.
9. Ld Advocate for the complainant Shri.Gajbhiye argued on the line of the consumer complaint and further argued that the district forum has rightly appreciated the facts and law in proper perspective and allowed the complaint, there requires no interference in the order of District Forum. The learned advocate relied upon the judgement of Honorable National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in Andhra University and another versus Janjanam Jagdeesh ,reported in III (2010) CPJ310 (NC ),wherein the Hon. National Commission held that the university guidelines have overriding effect over the own guidelines of the institute and the complainant is entitled to receive fees and certificates from the institute as he is leaving the institute within a week without attending any class.
10. Discussion
We have gone through the impugned judgment and order of District Commission. It reveals that the District Commission allowed the consumer complaint filed by the complainant observing that even though the complainant was not eligible for the admission to 5th and 6th semesters, the opponent compelled him to take the provisional admission to 5th semester and to deposit the partial fees of Rs 50,000- which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of opponent.
We agree with the observations of the District Forum on the point of facts. However, it reveals that the District Forum did not look into the legal aspect that whether the complainant is covered under the definition of consumer as envisaged under the Consumer Act. Though, the ld Advocate of complainant have relied up on the judgment of Hon National Commission in Andhra University and another versus Janjanam Jagdeesh (cited supra),wherein the Hon. National Commission held that the university guidelines have overriding effect over the own guidelines of the institute and the complainant is entitled to receive fees and certificates from the institute as he is leaving the institute within a week without attending any class.
However ,we would like to rely up on the recent judgment of Hon. National Commission in Manu Solanki and ors Vs Vinayaka Mission University (cited supra) which is three members judgement and delivered in year 2020, wherein the Hon National Commission held in para 51 of the judgment that , the institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre- admission as well as post -admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities ,swimming ,sport ,etc. except Coaching Institutions,will, therefore not be covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act,1986.Considering the findings of the National Commission in this judgment ,we are not inclined to hold that complainant is not covered in the definition of Consumer and there is no consumer –service provider relationship between parties. Therefore, there requires interference in the order of District Forum. In the circumstances appeal deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of District Forum and dismissing the consumer complaint.
Hence the order
ORDER
(i)Appeal is allowed .
(ii) The judgment and order of District Forum Chandrapur in Consumer Complaint
No.CC/18/171dated 30/07/2019 is quashed and set aside.
(iii) Consumer Complaint No.CC/171/2018 is dismissed
(iv)No order as to cost.
(v)Inform parties.
