IMPORTANT POINT
When the fees are paid to educational institution, the complainant is “consumer” and the Educational Institution is “service provider”.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training & Anr. against the order dated 23.08.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.219 of 2018.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent deposited Rs.15,000/- for booking of a seat in the petitioners’ Institute. The respondent had already appeared in some other examination where she became successful and took admission in that other course. Accordingly, respondent requested for refund of Rs.15,000/-. However, the petitioners did not refund the amount. Hence the consumer complaint was filed by the respondent bearing No.57/2018 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT Chandigarh, (in short ‘the District Forum’) and the District Forum vide order dated 18.07.2018 allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund Rs.14,000/- (after deducting Rs.1,000/- towards administrative charges) to the complainant and to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to her apart from cost of litigation as Rs.5,000/-. The order was to be complied within a period of 30 days otherwise interest @12% shall be paid for the total amount ordered from the date of filing of the complaint.

3. The opposite party/petitioner herein preferred an appeal bearing No.219 of 2018 before the State Commission and the State Commission vide its order dated 23.08.2018 dismissed the appeal.

4. Hence the present revision petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at the admission stage and perused the record. Learned counsel stated that the parents of the complainant had signed a document wherein it has been clearly stated that after booking of the seat, no fee shall be refunded. Parties are bound by the contract of the agreement and no order can be passed by the consumer forum against this agreement. The fora below have not assigned any reason for giving a finding of unfair trade practice on the part of the petitioners. The petitioners have only relied upon the agreement that fee paid was not refundable. Apart from this, the learned counsel stated that education is not a commodity and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not applicable for education sector. The educational institution is not a service provider and the student is not a consumer. This argument was taken in the written statement as well and was also advanced before the fora below, however, both the fora below have erroneously not accepted this argument and have decided the complaint against the educational institution. To support this argument, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:—

“(1) Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159. It has been held that:—

“Consumer Protection-consumer/Consumer dispute/Locus standi-Generally-University- if covered-Direction to issue BEd degree against rules of examination-Legality-Held, respondent as a student is neither consumer nor University is rendering any service to its students-Hence, Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain complaint-Respondent pursued MA and BEd simultaneously contrary to general rules of examination which prohibits pursuing two courses simultaneously-She had chosen to continue MA, while admission to BEd was cancelled-Without disclosing the said fact, respondent managed to appear for supplementary examinations for BEd, and passed, which results were withheld on detecting the mischief-Complaint filed for direction to award BEd degree-Held, claim of respondent was for a direction to appellant to act contrary to its own rules-No court has competence to issue direction contrary to law nor can direct an authority to act in contravention of statutory provisions-Hence, National Commission should not have issued direction to appellant to act contrary to statutory provisions-Also, respondent cannot plead estoppel