Principal Swami Parmanand Para-medical & Gnm School Of Nursing Chak Alla Baksh & Another v. Pardeep Kaur

Principal Swami Parmanand Para-medical & Gnm School Of Nursing Chak Alla Baksh & Another v. Pardeep Kaur

(Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh)

First Appeal No. 1765 Of 2009 | 24-01-2014

(Order)

Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member:

1. The appellants/opposite parties (hereinafter called “the opposite parties”) have filed the present appeal against the order dated 4.9.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter called “the District Forum”) in consumer complaint No.83 dated 24.2.2009 vide which the complaint was allowed with the direction to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 62,900/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 24.2.2009 till realization.

2. The complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called “the complainant”) against the opposite parties on the allegations that she deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on 7.7.2008 as security with the opposite parties to give training in English within two months and thereafter, test will be conducted and in case the complainant clears the test, she will be eligible for the counselling. Regular classes will start on 1.10.2008 and the complainant deposited a fee of Rs. 62,900/- with the opposite parties. It has been further alleged that she stayed in the hostel of the Ops for two months wherein Mess arrangements were not proper and she stated that she be allowed as a day scholar but this permission was not granted and in case she want to leave the School then fee deposited by her will be refunded in case some other student takes the admission, which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

3. Whereas the complaint was contested by the opposite parties, who filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant is estopped by her own act and conduct; the complaint is barred by jurisdiction; no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the complaint and the complainant has concealed the material facts. On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant was admitted in the institute of OP on 1.10.2008 Batch 2008 for G.N.M. Course for 3½ years and that she had deposited Rs. 5,000/- as security, Rs. 7650/- as annual charges, Rs. 12,350/- as part payment of tuition charges, Rs. 10,000/- as hostel fee, Rs. 7900/- and Rs. 20,000/- as tuition fee and in all Rs. 62,000/- were deposited towards various heads. It has been denied that there was no proper arrangement in the hostel. The complainant had been remaining absent without any reason and she moved an application dated 23.10.2008 with the opposite party that she is not ready to attend the Training Centre and asked for the refund of fee. It has been denied that the institute asked the complainant’s father to arrange for another girl. The institution suffered a loss when the complainant left the seat vacant, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops or unfair trade practice. The complaint has been filed just to harass the Ops., the same is without merit and be dismissed.

4. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.

5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex. C-1, receipts Ex. C-2 to C-7. On the other hand, the opposite party had tendered into evidence prospectus Ex. OP-1, declaration Ex. OP-2, application form Ex. OP-3, fee schedule Ex. OP-4, application dt. 23.10.08 Ex. OP-5, application dt. 16.10.08 Ex. OP-6, joining report Ex. OP-7, affidavit of Renu Choudhary Ex. OP-8.

6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written statement, evidence and documents brought on the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint as stated above.

7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellants/opposite parties have filed the present appeal.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants Ms. Sarika Gupta, Advocate for Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate and learned counsel for the respondent Sh. H.K. Aurora, Advocate.

9. In the grounds of appeal, it has been stated that the learned District Forum has not properly appreciated the proposition in question and passed its finding on surmises and conjectures. It has been contended by the counsel for the appellants that the learned District Forum does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in question with regard to refund of the fee. To support this proposition, a reference has been made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur” wherein it was held that matter of admission, fees etc. cannot be a question of deficiency in service and barred to entertain the Consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He has also relied upon Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Bihar School Examination Board versus Suresh Prasad Sinha” as well as “P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors.”.

10. It is clear that this is a case of refund of fee and it has been specifically mentioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur”, 2010(2) CPC 696 S.C., relying upon all earlier judgments 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. Further Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Bihar School Examination Board versus Suresh Prasad Sinha”, 2010 (1) CLT 255 (SC) observed that “the Education Boards & Universities are not ‘Service Provider’ and the complaints against them are not maintainable. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment “P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors.”, 2012(3) C.P.C. 615 (S.C.) has followed the above views.

11. The counsel for the respondent has not rebutted these judgments, therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned District Forum does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in question as the question, relates to refund of fee. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent is hereby dismissed being not maintainable before the Consumer Fora. No order as to costs.

12. However, she could adjudicate her claim before the appropriate Forum.

13. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 21.1.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

14. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant No. 1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum.

15. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.

Advocate List
Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN
  • PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR GUPTA
Eq Citations
  • LQ/SCDRC/2014/17
Head Note

A. Consumer Protection — Service — Educational institution — 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 — Education is not a commodity — Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Ss. 2(o), 2(z), 2(w) and 2(z-1) — Consumer Protection Forums — Jurisdiction — Educational institutions (Paras 10 and 11) B. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Ss. 2(o), 2(z), 2(w) and 2(z-1) — Consumer Protection Forums — Jurisdiction — Educational institutions — Education Boards & Universities are not ‘Service Provider’ and the complaints against them are not maintainable (Para 10)