KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL Nos.  382/2018, 383/2018, 394/2018, 395/2018, 396/2018,

397/2018, 398/2018, 399/2018, 400/2018 & 401/2018

COMMON JUDGMENT DATED: 08.11.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. Nos. 207/2016, 293/2016, 294/2016, 210/2016, 209/2016, 236/2016,

237/2016, 208/2016, 191/2016 & 211/2016 of CDRC, Idukki)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN     : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPEAL No. 382/2018

APPELLANT:

Karnataka State Open University, Mukthagangotri, Mysore-570 006 represented by its Registrar.

(By Adv. P.A. Mohammed Shah)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Geenumol, D/o Shaji, Vattappillil House, Puthupariyaram P.O., Thodupuzha, Idukki.

(By Adv. Shiji Joseph)

2. St. Alphonsa College, T.B. Junction, Thodupuzha, Idukki -685 584.

3. Francis, Nellikunnel House, Kappu Kara, Kumaramangalam Village, Thodupuzha Taluk.

(By Adv. Asok Kumar J.S. for R2 & R3)

4. West Cost Educational Trust, Kayamkulam, Kollam-690 502 represented by its Manager.

5. Department of Education, Kerala represented by its Secretary.

APPEAL No. 383/2018

APPELLANT:

Karnataka State Open University, Mukthagangotri, Mysore-570 006 represented by its Registrar.

(By Adv. P.A. Mohammed Shah)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Vishnu, S/o Suresh Pulickapparambil House, Kaliyar P.O., Idukki.

(By Adv. Shiji Joseph)

2. St. Alphonsa College, T.B. Junction, Thodupuzha, Idukki -685 584.

3. Francis, Nellikunnel House, Kappu Kara, Kumaramangalam Village, Thodupuzha Taluk.

(By Adv. Asok Kumar J.S. for R2 & R3)

4. West Cost Educational Trust, Kayamkulam, Kollam-690 502 represented by its Manager.

5. Department of Education, Kerala represented by its Secretary.

APPEAL No. 394/2018

APPELLANT:

Karnataka State Open University, Mukthagangotri, Mysore-570 006 represented by its Registrar.

(By Adv. P.A. Mohammed Shah)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Deepu K.J., Kaippanal House, Pothanicadu P.O., Ernakulam.

(By Adv. Shiji Joseph)

2. St. Alphonsa College, T.B. Junction, Thodupuzha, Idukki -685 584.

3. Francis, Nellikunnel House, Kappu Kara, Kumaramangalam Village, Thodupuzha Taluk.

4. West Cost Educational Trust, Kayamkulam, Kollam-690 502 represented by its Manager.

5. Department of Education, Kerala represented by its Secretary.

APPEAL No. 395/2018

APPELLANT:

Karnataka State Open University, Mukthagangotri, Mysore-570 006 represented by its Registrar.

(By Adv. P.A. Mohammed Shah)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Thomas, S/o Joshy, Alaekathadathil House, Koduveli P.O., Kodikkulam.

(By Adv. Shiji Joseph)

2. St. Alphonsa College, T.B. Junction, Thodupuzha, Idukki -685 584.

3. Francis, Nellikunnel House, Kappu Kara, Kumaramangalam Village, Thodupuzha Taluk.

4. West Cost Educational Trust, Kayamkulam, Kollam-690 502 represented by its Manager.
5. Department of Education, Kerala represented by its Secretary.

APPEAL No. 396/2018

APPELLANT:

Karnataka State Open University, Mukthagangotri, Mysore-570 006 represented by its Registrar.

(By Adv. P.A. Mohammed Shah)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Sijomon Saji, Mulakkasseril House, Mundanmudi P.O., Idukki.

(By Adv. Shiji Joseph)

2. St. Alphonsa College, T.B. Junction, Thodupuzha, Idukki -685 584.

3. Francis, Nellikunnel House, Kappu Kara, Kumaramangalam Village, Thodupuzha Taluk.

4. West Cost Educational Trust, Kayamkulam, Kollam-690 502 represented by its Manager.

5. Department of Education, Kerala represented by its Secretary.

APPEAL No. 397/2018

APPELLANT:

Karnataka State Open University, Mukthagangotri, Mysore-570 006 represented by its Registrar.

(By Adv. P.A. Mohammed Shah)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Vishnu, S/o Raju, Kallethanathu House, Neendapara P.O., Neryamangalam, Ernakulam.

(By Adv. Shiji Joseph)

2. St. Alphonsa College, T.B. Junction, Thodupuzha, Idukki -685 584.

3. Francis, Nellikunnel House, Kappu Kara, Kumaramangalam Village, Thodupuzha Taluk.

4. West Cost Educational Trust, Kayamkulam, Kollam-690 502 represented by its Manager.

5. Department of Education, Kerala represented by its Secretary.

APPEAL No. 398/2018

APPELLANT:

Karnataka State Open University, Mukthagangotri, Mysore-570 006 represented by its Registrar.

(By Adv. P.A. Mohammed Shah)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Amal Juby Xavier, Narikkattu House, Rajamudy P.O., Idukki.

(By Adv. Shiji Joseph)

2. St. Alphonsa College, T.B. Junction, Thodupuzha, Idukki -685 584.

3. Francis, Nellikunnel House, Kappu Kara, Kumaramangalam Village, Thodupuzha Taluk.

4. West Cost Educational Trust, Kayamkulam, Kollam-690 502 represented by its Manager.

5. Department of Education, Kerala represented by its Secretary.

APPEAL No. 399/2018

APPELLANT:

Karnataka State Open University, Mukthagangotri, Mysore-570 006 represented by its Registrar.

(By Adv. P.A. Mohammed Shah)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Gokul S. Konnat, Kunnampurathu House, Pannor P.O., Thodupuzha, Idukki.

(By Adv. Shiji Joseph)

2. St. Alphonsa College, T.B. Junction, Thodupuzha, Idukki -685 584.

3. Francis, Nellikunnel House, Kappu Kara, Kumaramangalam Village, Thodupuzha Taluk.

4. West Cost Educational Trust, Kayamkulam, Kollam-690 502 represented by its Manager.

5. Department of Education, Kerala represented by its Secretary.

APPEAL No. 400/2018

APPELLANT:

Karnataka State Open University, Mukthagangotri, Mysore-570 006 represented by its Registrar.

(By Adv. P.A. Mohammed Shah)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Vishak C.R., Chakkumkal House, Neryamangalam P.O., Kothamangalam, Idukki.

(By Adv. Shiji Joseph)

2. St. Alphonsa College, T.B. Junction, Thodupuzha, Idukki -685 584.

3. Francis, Nellikunnel House, Kappu Kara, Kumaramangalam Village, Thodupuzha Taluk.

4. West Cost Educational Trust, Kayamkulam, Kollam-690 502 represented by its Manager.

5. Department of Education, Kerala represented by its Secretary.

APPEAL No. 401/2018

APPELLANT:

Karnataka State Open University, Mukthagangotri, Mysore-570 006 represented by its Registrar.

(By Adv. P.A. Mohammed Shah)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Stijo S., Parackel House, Peermade P.O., Idukki.

(By Adv. Shiji Joseph)

2. St. Alphonsa College, T.B. Junction, Thodupuzha, Idukki -685 584.

3. Francis, Nellikunnel House, Kappu Kara, Kumaramangalam Village, Thodupuzha Taluk.

4. West Cost Educational Trust, Kayamkulam, Kollam-690 502 represented by its Manager.

5. Department of Education, Kerala represented by its Secretary.

COMMON JUDGMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER

These 10 appeals arise from the common judgment rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Idukki (will be referred to as District Commission for brevity) in C.C. No. 191/2016 and 9 connected matters as per the order dated 27.03.2018.  The appellant was the 3^rd opposite party in all the 10 matters.  The District Commission had allowed the complaints and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- each to the complainants in all the complaints with a default clause to pay interest @ 12% per annum on failure if any to pay compensation within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

2.  The details of appeals and related cases before the District Commission are detailed below:

1) Appeal No. 382/2018                    -        C.C. No. 207/2016.

2) Appeal No. 383/2018                    -        C.C. No. 293/2016.

3) Appeal No. 394/2018                    -        C.C. No. 294/2016.

4) Appeal No. 395/2018                    -        C.C. No. 210/2016.

5) Appeal No. 396/2018                    -        C.C. No. 209/2016.

6) Appeal No. 397/2018                    -        C.C. No. 236/2016.

7) Appeal No. 398/2018                    -        C.C. No. 237/2016.

8) Appeal No. 399/2018                    -        C.C. No. 208/2016.

9) Appeal No. 400/2018                    -        C.C. No. 191/2016.

10) Appeal No. 401/2018                  -        C.C. No. 211/2016.

3.  The appellant is the Karnataka State Open University.  The 10 complaints were filed with common contentions which are detailed below:

The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties were running a Professional College in the name and style as St. Alphonsa College of Engineering, Thodupuzha.   Through the advertisements they published that the course run by them was recognised by the 3^rd opposite party and believing the said advertisement and promise the complainants had secured admission in the college run by the 1^st opposite party for Diploma course in Computer Science during the year 2013 and they completed the course up to the 4^th semester.  At the time of admission and during the 3 years of the course, the complainants had remitted Rs. 51,000/- each as tuition fees and spent Rs. 20,000/- each for travelling and other expenses.  During the 2^nd year examination, the complainants received information that the 3^rd opposite party was not recognised by the UGC.  On 16.06.2015, UGC had issued a public notice that the 3^rd opposite party was a university which had no recognition to conduct any course after 2012-13 and they had continued the course against the guidelines of the UGC.

4.  The 1^st opposite party had issued notices to the complainants’ parents in which they had admitted that the course had no recognition of the UGC and the 2^nd opposite party offered to continue the course through Arunachal University.  But the complainants came to know that the Arunachal University also was not having recognition.  The parents of the complainants had formed an Association against the deception played on the students by the opposite parties.  On 3.12.2015 the opposite parties had convened a PTA meeting wherein the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties had given a signed agreement to the parents of the complainants assuring that they would obtain UGC recognition for the course and if it was not obtained, they will compensate the students adequately.  But they did not fulfil their promise.   So the complainants and other students had preferred a petition before the SHO, Thodupuzha and filed a complaint before the District Collector, Idukki.

5.  The complainants were misled by the opposite parties through advertisements and prospectus and on account of the deception, they had spent Rs. 61800/- as tuition fee, exam fee, study materials cost, lab fee and other fees.  The complainants had lost their valuable academic years.  So the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainants.  They would seek for refund of the amount received by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- each as compensation for the loss of three academic years and also for the mental agony suffered by them.

6.  On admitting the complaint notices were issued to the opposite parties who appeared and filed versions with the following contentions: 

The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed a joint version that the 3^rd opposite party was a university constituted under the Karnataka State Open University Act, 1992. It offers distant study course and the 4^th opposite party, the academic collaborative institution implements the programme by appointing various study centres like the 1^st opposite party. The 3^rd opposite party had directly given registration for each student through the 4^th opposite party.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties got approval through opposite parties 3 and 4 for conducting the study centre by receiving a fixed fee for registering the students and for approval of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. When complainants were admitted in the course, the sanction order issued by the 3^rd opposite party was in force.  At the time of admitting the complainants, the 1^st opposite party was included in the approval list of UGC.  On 8.8.2014, the 3^rd opposite party had published a notification to the effect that they had decided to withdraw all types of technical and paramedical programmes on account of the interference of the UGC.  Against this notification, various associations of study centres and collaborative institutions had filed Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.

7.  The decision taken by the UGC or 3^rd opposite party is beyond the control of this opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party also had communicated that the students admitted prior to 8.8.2014 could appear for examination.  According to the 3^rd opposite party, the obstruction is only against them and all the complainants can migrate to other universities and continue their education.

8.  Some students had already registered with other universities and continued their course. The opposite parties further raised a contention that they had already filed a suit against UGC and 3^rd opposite party and if the complainants have any interest, the opposite parties are ready to help them for migrating to other universities for the continuation of their studies.

9.  The 3^rd opposite party in their version contended that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainants were not consumers within the scope of Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.   It is also contended that in the case of Registrar (Evaluation) Karnataka University Vs. Poornima G. Bhandari, 1994 (2) CPC 101 (NC), the National Commission had held that “in conducting Examination, Valuation of answer papers and publishing results, the University cannot be considered to be performing any service for consideration and the candidate cannot be regarded as a person who had hired or availed of the services of the University for a consideration”.  So the complainants were not consumers and hence not entitled to get any relief under the Consumer Protection Act. 

10.  The 4^th opposite party was one of the academic collaborations and on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.6.2011 filed by Registrar of the 3^rd opposite party, written agreement was executed between 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties and it was the specific responsibility of the 4^th opposite party to get the recognition of the concerned regulatory body with regard to the technical and professional courses.  The 3^rd opposite party is not liable for the acts and omissions of the opposite parties 1, 2 and 4.  They are not bound by the direction of the UGC and based on their direction the University will have to function.

11.  The 4^th opposite party had also raised a contention that the complaints were not maintainable, since it lacks the requisite pleadings to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.  It also conceded as a collaborating institution of the 3^rd opposite party for imparting training in diploma programmes through various study centres.  All these courses were recognised by the UGC.  Later, the UGC started confining the sanction of courses within the regional areas of the universities.  In the light of the direction issued by the UGC, the universities had issued notification by withdrawing certain academic courses conducted through the collaborative institution. So the 4^th opposite party had sent a list of such students and stopped further admission.  These students were permitted to appear for the examination and are still continuing their courses in various study centres of the opposite party. The association of study centres had approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing writ petitions and the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to issue stay order against the UGC notification. Those matters are even now pending with extended orders of stay.  There was no falsity in the advertisement made by the opposite party.  This opposite party never collected any fee from the complainant and they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants.

12.  All these ten complaints were considered together.  The complainant in C.C. No. 191/2016 was examined as PW1 and Exts. P1, P2, P3 series, P4 series, P5 to P9, P10 series and P11 to P18 marked on the side of the complainants.  No oral evidence was let in by the opposite parties.  Exts. R1 to R5 were marked on their side. 

13.  The appellant raised the following contentions in the appeal memorandum.

The District Commission went wrong in entertaining the complaint as the complaint was not maintainable.  The complainants would never come within the definition of ‘consumer’ under Sec. 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The order passed by the District Commission is bad in view of the law settled by Hon’ble National Commission in Registrar, Karnataka University Vs. Poornima G.  Bhandari.

14.  Heard the counsel for the appellant and the respondents. 

15.  In Manu Solanki Vs. Vinayaka Mission University, the National Commission, after considering the matter in depth had reached a conclusion that the Consumer Fora do not have jurisdiction to entertain all disputes regarding any activity associated with educational institutions.  The definition of service as contemplated in Sec. 2(1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act means

"service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes but not limited to the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or loading or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service."

The National Commission had also considered the scope of definition of a "student" which means one who studies or one who devotes to book for any study for a course of instruction in any school, college or university.  A seven judge bench of our Supreme Court in "Inamdar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra" in a ruling reported in 2005 (6) SCC 37 observed that while dealing with admissions in professional and unaided institutions "education" was defined  in very wide terms such as bringing up the process of developing and training the powers or capabilities of human beings.  The National Commission had elaborately considered all the aspects and ultimately reached a conclusion on the basis of the ruling of the Apex Court reported in Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha (2009) 8 SCC 483 that the Board was not a service provider and the student who takes an examination was not a consumer and resultantly complaints under the Consumer Protection Act will not be maintainable against the Board.

16.  It also considered the ruling of the Apex Court in "Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur" reported in (2010) 11 SCC 159 and declared that education is not a commodity and educational institutions are not providing any kind of service. So there cannot be any kind of service in admission, fee etc and the question of deficiency of service would never arise. It was also declared in categorical terms that the Consumer Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act have no jurisdiction to entertain such matters.  Another ruling of the Apex Court  significant in this regard is the one reported in (1993) 1 SCC 645 in "Unni Krishnan J.P. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh" in which the Apex Court made an observation that education has never been a commerce in this country.  Establishing an education institution can neither be a trade or business nor can it be a profession.  In AIR 1988 SC 1700 the Apex Court had categorically declared that imparting education would never come within the definition of service under Sec. 2(o) if read under Sec. 2(c) (iii), 2(d)(ii) and 2 g of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and ultimately a final resolution was arrived at that education was not a commodity and educational institutions are not rendering any service.  In view of the settled position of law as on today it can be concluded that imparting education by an educational institution working under a board will never come within the scope of service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.

17.  Since there is no service, the question of deficiency of service would never arise.  Therefore the order passed by the District Commission is found unsustainable.  Hence we are inclined to allow the appeals. 

In the result, all the appeals are allowed.  The common order passed by the District Commission, Pathanamthitta in C.C. Nos. 207/2016, 293/2016, 294/2016, 210/2016, 209/2016, 236/2016, 237/2016, 208/2016, 191/2016 & 211/2016 is set aside.  All the complaints shall stand dismissed.  The parties shall bear their respective costs.  

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                               AJITH KUMAR  D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                                            RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb