A student who takes admission in an educational institution for pursuing a course of study is not a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

J.M. Malik, J.

This common order shall decide the above detailed six cases because these cases involve similar law points and facts. We would take the facts of the case from revision petition No.638 of 2014.

2. Regional Institute of Co-operative Management, Chandigarh, the petitioner in this case, made a notification through advertisements, etc., and assured about its outstanding reputation as per publicity brochure, etc. It assured 100% job placement guarantee. Its prospectus mentioned for the batch 2010-12 that the Post Graduate Diploma in Management which would provide was equivalent to Masters of Business Administration (MBA) and recognised by the Association of Indian Universities. It was also represented that it was funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.

3. Placing reliance on these representations, all the six complainants, took admission in its two years full-time Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Agriculture Business), for the year 2010-12 batch. The Opposite Party (OP) also contested that it was having healthy relations with Vaikunth Mehta National Institute of Co-operative Management, Pune University and considered it as its parent institute. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.4,53,500/- as per the payment schedule. The complainants completed the aforesaid Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Agriculture Business). They were issued certificates which reflected that those certificates were recognised by the All India Council for Technical Education, Ministry of Human Resources & Development, Government of India. However, it was not mentioned that the said Diploma was recognised by the Association of Indian Universities as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration Degree, meaning thereby that it was only a Post Graduate Diploma in Management. It also did not show that it was equivalent to Masters of Business Administration Degree. Consequently, the complainants could not get enrolled themselves for Ph.D course as according to the UGC norms, it allowed admission only if the Diploma course was certified by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration Degree. The Teachers were not employed as promised.

4. Consequently, complaints were filed with the prayer to refund the amount of Rs. 4,53,500/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. and compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- mental agony and physical harassment, punitive damages to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

5. The OP contested all these cases. It listed the following defences. The case was barred by time. The students were informed at the beginning of the Session, vide a notice, placed on the Notice Board that the Association of Indian Universities had not recognised the Diploma in question equivalent to Masters of Business Administration Degree. However, the students continued their studies without demur. The case was bad for necessary parties. It is admitted that due to inadvertence it was mentioned in prospectus that the Diploma in question was recognised by the Association of Indian Universities as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration Degree. It is explained that the OP had already applied to the Association of Indian Universities for grant of recognition to the Diploma in question as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration Degree which was expected at any time. it is Denied that any assurance was given to the complainants.

6. The complainants filed complaints before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaints and compensation in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. was also granted.

7. Aggrieved by that order, the complainant filed a First Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission placed reliance on various authorities reported in Aashirwad Health and Education Trust & Anr. v. S.L.M. Ahmed & Ors., 2013 (2) CPC, 323, Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, 2013 (4) CPR 394 (SC), wherein it was held that the