KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Honble Mr. Justice P.K. Shamsuddin, President;
Mr. K. Balakrishnan & Prof. K. Madhuri Latha, Members
K.S. SATHEESAN—Complainant
versus
A. SHANMUGA SUNDARAM & ORS.—Opposite Parties
O.P. No. 14 of 1995—Decided on 30.9.1997

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986). Section 12, 24-A - Whether complaint barred by limitation? - No-Cause of action arose on receipt of Ext. P-5 notice Complaint filed within the stipulated period of two years although not delayed, yet if so delay condoned.

       Held: It is seen that it is only on receipt of Ext. P5 notice it was clear that there will be difficulty for the complainants son to appear for M.B.B.S. examination. If at all, the cause of action arose then only and we find within two years from that date the complaint has been filed and therefore it has to be held that the complaint has been filed well within the stipulated period of two years. Further when the complainants son joined the institute the period of limitation was 3 years and it was only by the amendment introduced by Act 1994 it was reduced to two years, Of course, the Amendment Act also provided for condonation of delay for sufficient grounds. In this case the complainant has a also prayed for condonation of delay. In the circumstances of the case even if cause of action arose earlier, in the peculiar circumstances of the case we feel that the delay has to be condoned. (Para 11)

       (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986) Section 17 Territorial jurisdiction - As part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the commission - It has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

       Held: He also invited our attention to the decision of the State Commission, Madras, in 1994(3) CPR 625 where a similar condition was discussed and held subject· to Salem jurisdiction unsustainable. It further held that the Commission has jurisdiction to try a case if the cause of action wholly or in part arises within its jurisdiction and it cannot be excluded by a clause of this nature. We respectfully agree with the view taken in those decisions and hold that this Commission has jurisdiction as part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court.

       (Para 20)

       (iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 1986) Section 2(d)(g)(0) - Deficiency of service qua education -interpreted - Education a service within the purview of the Section 2(0) - Complainants son a beneficiary - Competent to file complaint.

       Held: Education also will come within the purview of Section 2(0) of the Consumer Protection Act which takes in its ambit services of any description which is made available to potential users. It was held that educational institution which charges heavy fees for the services and imparts education is a service of the kind defined in Section 2(0) of the Consumer Protection Act. In yet another decision in Matapukam v. S. Nfjalingappa Institute of Dental Science and Another. (1997) (2) CPR 12 it was held there is deficiency in service in concealing true nature of extent of sanctioned student strength in the prospectus and admitting students above the limit. In that case student could not appear for examination. In view of this overwhelming - authorities we are unable to accept the recent ruling of the Tamil Nadu High Court. which was relied on by learned Counsel for opposite parties. In our view the wide contention taken by the opposite parties that education will not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act cannot be accepted. (Para 13)

       It has come out that consideration was paid by the complainant and his son was only a beneficiary and in the circumstances the complainant is competent to file the complaint.

       (Para 14)

       (iv) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act. No. 68 of 1986) - Section 2(g) - Unfair trade practice misrepresentation regarding institutions prospective affiliation to Dr.M.G.R. Medical University - Amounts to Deficiency in service.

       Held: If such an assurance was not there, no students or parents of students would have prepared to pay such huge amounts as donation and capitation fee. Such a representation without proper basis and without any assurance from the appropriate authority for inducing parents of students who were eager to get admitted their students to Medical Course and to pay huge amount as capitation fee for getting admission has to be termed as unfair trade practice. If the opposite parties were not able to obtain the required affiliation that also would amount to deficiency in service. So construed we are inclined to hold that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in the instant case. (Para 21)

       Result: Complaint allowed. Compensation granted.

       IMPORTANT POINT

       Education also falls within the purview of Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. Education institution which charges heavy fees for the services and imparts education is a services defined in Section 2(o) of he Act.