SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
M.P. Singh Rathore —Petitioner
versus
Little Flowers Public School and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.1932 of 2019
(Against the Order dated 16/05/2019 in Appeal No. 415/2010 of the State Commission Delhi)
Decided on 15.6.2020

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: in person

IMPORTANT POINT
Educational Institutions are not service provider and students are not consumer.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 and 2(1)(g) – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 41 and 2(11)] – Education – Deficiency in service – Claim for – Scope – Allegedly, son of petitioner was failed in class XI, deliberately by respondent school and her report card was tampered with by School authorities – District Forum directed the School to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000 – State Commission however allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint on ground that respondent school is not a service provider – Challenge against – It is settled law that for purposes of standard of teaching and examination a recognised educational institution is not a service provider and student is also not a consumer – Plea of petitioner that education is covered under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 not tenable – Interference with impugned order of State Commission declined. (Paras 7 to 12)

Result: Petition dismissed.

ORDER

Prem Narain, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner M.P.Singh Rathore against the order dated 16.05.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, (in short ‘the State Commission’) assed in Appeal No.415 of 2010.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of the present revision petition are that a complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum, District North-East, Nand Nagri (in short ‘the District Forum’) that his son was wrongly failed by the opposite parties/respondent school. The complainant filed a consumer complaint bearing No.39/06 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Delhi, (in short the ‘District Forum’). The District Forum vide its order dated 17.04.2010 partly allowed the complaint and passed the following order:-

“Therefore, we are empowered to give the findings that prima-facie criminal case is made out against the OPs for tampering and manipulating the report card of Vishal Rathore on the basis of the order passed by Learned magistrate dated 23.6.2007 and Ld. Hon’ble High court dtd. 23.3.2009 which are already on the record.

Thus, we hold OPs guilty of deficiency of service and as such there is some force in the complaint which is liable to be allowed partly.

We direct OP-I, II and III jointly or severely to pay Rs.50,000/- compensation to the complainant for his physical and mental harassment as well as Rs.10,000/- cost of litigation.”

3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties preferred appeal before the State Commission being FA No.415/2010. The State Commission vide its order dated 16.5.2019 set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint and hence the present revision petition.

4. Heard the petitioner in person. The petitioner stated that his son was failed in Class XI deliberately by the respondent School. His report card was tampered with by the School authorities and the District Forum, finding this to be correct, allowed the complaint and directed the School to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. In the appeal filed by the opposite parties, the State Commission has allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint on the ground that respondent School is not a service provider and the complaint against the respondent school is not maintainable. The petitioner pointed out that a Seven Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and others, etc., AIR 1978 SC 548 has observed the following:-

“Despite the width of the definition it could not be the intention of the Legislature that categories 2 and 3 of the charities alluded to by our learned brother Krishna Iyer in his judgment, hospitals run on charitable basis or as a part of the functions of the Government or local bodies like Municipalities and educational and research institutions whether run by private entities or by Government and liberal and learned professions like that of doctors, lawyers and teachers, the pursuit of which is dependent upon an individual’s own education, intellectual attainments and special expertise should fall within the pale of the definition.”

5. Learned counsel further stated that in the same judgment there is a reference of the following as well:-

“179. It may be pertinent to mention in this connection that the need for excluding some callings, services and undertakings from the purview of the aforesaid definition has been felt and recognised by this Court from time to time while explaining the scope of the definition of “industry”. This is evident from the observations made by this Court in State of Bombay vs. the Hospital Mazdoor Sabha (AIR 1960 SC 610), (supra), Secretary, Madras Gymkhana Club Employees Union v. Management of the Gymkhana Club (1968) 1 SC R 742: (AIR 1968 SC 554) and Management of Safdargung Hospital New Delhi V. Kuldip Singh Sethi (1971) 1 SCR 177: (AIR 1970 SC 1407). Speaking for the Bench in State of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top