Mrs. Firoza Bano, Member — As identical questions of law and facts are involved in the above noted appeals, they are being decided by this common order.

2. The brief facts of the appeals are that Nitin Kumar, Tarun and Gaurav were studying in classes 6,7 & 8th at Central Academy School, Ajmer where Shri O.P. Gupta was the Principal. On 10.8.90 the cycle of Tarun was found broken which was kept in the School after taking permission from the Principal. The cycle was taken back on 13.8.90 from the School. On 13.8.90 Smt. Lalita Dave & Shri Omkarlal Dave went to deposit the fees and charges of books of Tarun Kumar, Gaurav Kumar & Nitin Kumar but the Cashier told them to come on 16.8.90 as the time was over. At this Shri Dave and Mrs. Dave met the Principal of the School and complained about the cycle affair. It is alleged that Shri Gupta did not hear them patiently and misbehaved with them and turned out the students. The students had to be admitted in another School. The complainants claimed damages for the amount spent by them in fees, books, uniforms and for defamation. In reply it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the contents of complaints are incorrect. The students left the School on their accord. The complainants are not consumers and the complaints are not maintainable. The guardians of the students have filed the complaints to illegally extract money from the appellants by defaming them.

3. After hearing the parties, the learned District Forum, Ajmer accepted the complaints and awarded damages to them. Aggrieved from the orders, these appeals have been filed.

4. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and gone through the record carefully. According to the Supreme Court, "imparting of education is the nature of a mission or a noble vocation. A teacher educates children, he moulds their character, builds up their personality and makes them fit to become a responsible citizen. Children grow under the care of teachers. The clerical work, if any they may do, is only incidental to their principal work of teaching". The definition of service under Section 2(o)(ii) and 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it becomes apparent that the relationship of teacher and student of an educational institution is not a service on hire because student is not such a consumer which is linked any way with the buyer of any economic goods and has not been linked with education, teacher and student. From the facts of the complaints, it is found that the complainants have made no complaints against the appellants for not properly providing educational facilities to them. Their grievance is that Shri O.P. Gupta misbehaved with them and turned out the students from the School. There is no evidence on record to show that the students were turned out of the School by the appellants. Thus even according to the complainants no deficiency in imparting education is alleged against the appellants. If Shri O.P. Gupta misbehaved with the guardians of the students they could have taken action against him in Criminal or Civil Courts. There is no relationship between them so as to attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The learned District Forum has gravely erred in accepting the complaints and awarding compensation.

5. Accordingly the appeals are accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. The complaints are dismissed with no cost.

Appeal accepted.