Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
J.S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER, H.S. GURAM, MEMBER
India Educational Consultancy - Appellant
Versus
Manjit Singh - Respondent
First Appeal No. 788 of 2013
Decided on : 09-11-2011
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Harshit Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate.
Educational institutions cannot be dealt with under the Consumer Protection Act, and the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to deal with matters related to educational institutions.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Educational Institution - 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - [P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC), Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, V (2010) SLT 545=2010 (2) SCC 159, Gandhi Vocational College, Guna & Anr. v. Himanshi Jain & Ors., 2011 (3) CLT 35] - The court found that educational institutions cannot be dealt with under the Consumer Protection Act, as education is not considered a commodity. The court also emphasized that educational institutions are not service providers covered under the Consumer Protection Act. The court relied on previous cases to establish that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to deal with matters related to educational institutions.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant enrolled in a course at the center of the opposite party (OP) and paid a fee. The OP assured the complainant that the exam would be conducted by the J & K Board, but the complainant later found out that the OP was not authorized to conduct the exam and had not submitted the fee and documents to the Board. The complainant filed a complaint seeking a refund and compensation for mental harassment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the OP was not authorized by the J & K Education Board to conduct the exam and that educational institutions cannot be dealt with under the Consumer Protection Act. The court concluded that the order of the District Forum was not sustainable and dismissed the complaint.
Issues: The issues revolved around the authorization of the OP to conduct the exam, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum in matters related to educational institutions, and the complainant's entitlement to a refund and compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that educational institutions cannot be dealt with under the Consumer Protection Act and that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to deal with matters related to educational institutions.
Final Decision: The court accepted the appeal of the appellant, set aside the order of the District Forum, and dismissed the complaint. The appellant was entitled to a refund of the deposited amounts.
ORDER :
Mr. J.S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member-The appellant of this appeal (the opposite party in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondent of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint), challenging order dated 17.6.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sangrur, accepting the complaint of the complainant by directing the OP to refund the amount of Rs. 32,000 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till realization, besides Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation for mental harassment. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the OP now appellant.
2. The complainant Manjit Singh has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) against the OPs on the averments that he got admission in the center of OP for doing ETT through J & K Board. The total fee of the said course was Rs. 64,000 for a period of two years. The complainant deposited the original educational certificates with OP, as demanded by the OP at the time of admission. The complainant paid Rs. 32,000 to OP for first year in two instalments and OP issued receipt No. 776 dated 8.10.2009 of Rs. 17,000 and receipt No. 288 dated 11.8.2009 of Rs. 15,000 to complainant. The OP also got filled the examination form from the complainant stating that exam of said course would be held in the month of April, 2010 at J & K Board and roll number thereof would be provided to complainant at his residential address for the above exam. When complainant had not received the roll number in the month of April, 2010 from J & K Board, as assured by OP, he contacted the OP in this regard and enquired about it. OP assured that complainant need not to worry because other candidates have also not received the roll number, as yet. In first week of December, 2010, when the complainant did not receive the roll number, then he again approached the OP to enquire about the matter. The complainant contacted J & K Board also and came to know that OP is not authorized to conduct the exam and OP has not submitted fee and documents with them of complainant. The complainant requested the OP to refund the amount, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint directing the OP to refund the amount of Rs. 32,000 with interest @ 18%, besides returning original documents of the complainant and further to pay the compensation of Rs. 1 lac for mental harassment, Rs. 50,000 as exemplary damages and Rs. 11,000 as cost of litigation.
3. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply by raising preliminary objections that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties inasmuch as J & K Board is necessary party in this case. The complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint. On merits, OP averred that complainant approached the OP for doing ETT. The original documents alleged by the complainant were with the complainant as no original documents were required. It has been specifically apprised to the complainant that schedule and time of the exam was to be fixed by the J & K Board and exam would be taken by J & K Board, as per its schedule. It was denied that complainant has not received his roll number. It was pleaded that the complainant received his roll number, which was 268305, hence the complainant approached the District Forum wrongly. The complainant asked the OP about postponing the examination, whereas J & K Board is a statutory body, which was to do it and it was not possible at all for OP, as to whether the J & K Board postponed the exam or not was beyond the pale of jurisdiction of OP. It was denied by the OP that fee and documents of complainant had not been submitted to the Board. Rest of the averments of the complaint have been controverted by OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex. C1 along with copies of documents Ex. C2 to Ex. C5. As against it; OP tendered in evidence affidavit Manpreet Si
