Mr. V. Verma, Member—The Director, Himachal Institute of Engineering and Technology, Kasumpti has come in appeal impugning the order of the District Forum, Shimla dated the 8th June, 1993. Against the same order an appeal has been filed by Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta the complainant before the Forum below. Both the appeals we dispose of together through this order concentrating our attention first on the appeal filed by the Director.

2. During the year, 1991, the above institute opened admission to 3 years Diploma Courses in Civil Engineering, Electronics and Communication Engineering and the Electrical Engineering. As per the brochure issue the said institute was represented to be affiliated to the State Board of Technical Education, Himachal Pradesh and recognised by the Himachal Government. Shri Anil Kumar the respondent in the appeal applied for addmission on the 24th September, 1991 and was admitted to the course of Electronics and Communication Engineering on the 7th October, 1992 on payment of admission fee of Rs. 5,075/- besides Rs. 841/- on account of one month tuition fee plus Rs. 200/- as examination fee. In December, 1991/January, 1992, the respondents discontinued his studies in the said institute. On these facts there is no controversy. What is disputed is the factum of recognition and affiliation of the said institute at the time the respondent was admitted. The appelant's contention is that it was duly recognised by the Himachal Government when admission was made. After analysing the evidence led, the Id. Distt. Forum has held that the institute was not recognised by the All India Council of Technical Education and that without such recognition, the appellant institute was not entitled to make admission to the aforesaid courses. The approval for conducting the Diploma Courses during the Academic year 1991-92 was conveyed on the 9th April, 1992. It was still subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions specified therein. It has been held by the Ld. Forum that admission of Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta in September, 1991 tantamounted to 'deficiency in service' and for this the respondent has been awarded an amount of Rs. 25,000/- by way of damages and costs for the loss suffered.

3. The principle challange mounted by the learned Counsel for the appellant is on point of jurisdiction. According to him the subject of "Education' does not full within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act for short) and more specifically awarding of degrees is not a service contemplated by Section 2(1)(o) of the Act'; neither is a student a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c)of the Act. The preposition he had advanced before the learned Forum also placing reliance on AIR 1992 (CAL) 95. He has argued that the said authority —Smt. N. Teneja and Anrs. v. Calcutta District Forum has been wrongly distinguished from the instant case. Advancing the same line of argument before us, the learned Counsel has invited our attention to (i) AIR 1992 (SC) 1858 (Mohan Jain v. State of Karnataka) and (ii) 1993 (I) SCC 645 (Unni Krishanan, J.P. and Ors. v. State of AndhraPradesh and Ors.). We are afraid the ratio of none of these two cases advances the course of the appellant. The context was altogether different and in none of these judgments, the question as to whether imparting of education is or is not a service within the meaning of the Act was directly answered.

4. It is seen from the perusal of paras 19 and 20 of the Single Judge order of Calcutta High Court in Smt. N. Taneja and Anr. v. Calcutta District Forum and Ors. (AIR 1992 (Cal) 93) that the pronouncement to the effect that "Education does not come within the scope of Consumer Protection Act, 1986" has been made in manifestly distinguishable background and altogether different context of relationship between a teacher and student of an educational institution.

5. On the other hand, it has been held authoritatively on principle, precedent and the language of the statute