Back
2015 Supreme(SC) 1738
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MADAN B. LOKUR, S.A. BOBDE, JJ.
P. Sreenivasulu & Anr. – Appellants
VERSUS
P.J. Alexander & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.7003-7004 of 2015 (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2523-2524 of 2003)
Decided On : 09-09-2015
For Petitioner(s): Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. T. Baskar Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta,Adv.
For Respondent(s): Ms. Indu Goswamy,Adv. (NP)
An educational institution falls within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the decision of the Madras High Court stating otherwise is no longer valid.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Educational Institution - The court held that an educational institution falls within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the decision of the Madras High Court stating otherwise is no longer valid.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants raised a dispute regarding deficiency in service by an educational institution run by the respondent Educational Foundation. The National Commission initially held that the complaint before the State Commission was not maintainable based on the decision of the Madras High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the educational institution falls within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the decision of the Madras High Court was no longer valid. The judgment and order of the National Commission were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the State Commission for its decision on merits.
Issues: The main issue was whether an educational institution could be considered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the maintainability of the complaint before the State Commission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the precedence set by previous judgments, including the decision of the National Commission in Bhupesh Khurana & Ors. v. Vishwa Buddha Parishad & Ors. and the subsequent appeal in Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital v. Bhupesh Khurana & Ors.
Final Decision: The civil appeals were allowed, and the judgment and order of the National Commission were set aside, remanding the matter to the State Commission for its decision on merits.
ORDER
No one is present on behalf of the respondents despite service.
2. Leave granted.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants.
4. A dispute was raised by the appellants with regard to deficiency in service by the college run by the respondent Educational Foundation.
5. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short 'the National Commission') was of the opinion that in view of the decision of the Madras High Court in The Registrar, University of Madras & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [1995 Writ L.R.246], the complaint before the State Commission was not maintainable. The attention of the National Commission was also drawn to a judgment delivered by the National Commission itself in Bhupesh Khurana & Ors. v. Vishwa Buddha Parishad & Ors. [2000 CTJ 801 (CP)] in which it is held that a deficiency by an Educational Institute would come within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
6. The National Commission preferred to rely on the decision of the Madras High Court rather than its earlier decision rendered in Bhupesh Khurana (supra).
7. It has been brought to our notice that an appeal was filed against the order of the National Commission in Bhupesh Khurana and the decision in the appeal is reported as Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital v. Bhupesh Khurana & Ors. [(2009) 4 SCC 473]. The view expressed by the National Commission was upheld by this Court in the aforesaid decision.
8. Under the circumstances, an educational institution would come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the decision rendered by the Madras High Court would no longer be good law. Under the circumstances, we hold that the complaint filed before the State Commission was maintainable.
9. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment and order dated 12.09.2002 passed by the National Commission and remand the matter to the State Commission for its decision on merits.
10. The civil appeals are allowed.
