Back
R. K. AGRAWAL
Amruta Bharati – Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Council for Indian School – Respondent
ORDER
Delay condoned.
2. By means of the present Revision Petition, Ms. Amruta Bharati, the Original Complainant (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner), has approached this Commission, challenging the Order dated 31.07.2019, passed by the Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 49 of 2008, whereby the Appeal, preferred by the Secretary, Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination, Opposite Party No.2 in the Complaint, (hereinafter referred to as Respondent No.1 herein), has been allowed and the Order dated 18.12.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dhenkanal in Complaint Case No. 127 of 2007, preferred by the Petitioner herein, has been set aside. By the said Order, the District Commission had allowed the Complaint and issued certain directions to the Opposite Parties in the Complaint/Respondents herein.
3. I have heard Mr. Shakti K. Pattanaik, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, and gone through the Memo of Revision Petition as also the documents filed along with it, including the Orders passed by the Fora below.
4. The Petitioner was
Educational Institutions - Educational Institutions, Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, pic....
Educational institutions do not fall under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for post-admission disputes.
The Court ruled that educational institutions and their incidental activities are not subject to Consumer Protection Act provisions, affirming the need for liberalism in condoning delays for appeals.
(1) Educational matters – Educational matters do not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.(2) Education institutions – Educational institutions and the services they provide are n....
Education services offered by private institutes do not fall under consumer protections, as the evaluation process and resulting grievances show no deficiency in services rendered.
Educational institutions do not qualify as service providers under the Consumer Protection Act, rendering complaints against them unmaintainable.
“Educational Institutions do not fall within ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”
When OP could not provide hygienic food and water, which compelled complainant student to discontinue course, loss to complainant’s career cannot be compared with financial loss of OP.
District Commission can pass an interim order even if the crux of the matter is still being decided in Supreme Court in other cases.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
