IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Educational Institutions are not “Service Providers” – Educational institutions, while performing statutory or core educational functions (including matters of admission and fees), do not render a “service” as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, a student cannot be categorized as a “consumer” in this context.
(2) Arbitration Clauses do not Bar Consumer Jurisdiction – A mere Arbitration Clause in an agreement does not automatically exclude the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora. The Consumer Protection Act provides an additional remedy; however, this remains secondary to the fundamental requirement that the dispute must involve a “consumer” and a “service provider.”

ORDER

Kumkum Rani, President—This appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 26.11.2022 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 41 of 2022, styled as Sh. Arvind Soni Vs. Manager, Kasiga School, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed and the appellant / opposite party was directed to refund the balance security deposit to the tune of Rs.1,49,000/- to the respondent / complainant together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint, i.e., 29.01.2022 till payment, besides to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that in the month of April, 2018, the respondent / complainant got his ward Master Parth Soni admitted in Kasiga School in Class - XI. At the time of admission of his ward in the School, the complainant had deposited sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards security deposit and he was assured that at the time of issuance of transfer certificate of complainant’s ward as well as No Dues Certificate by the School, the security deposit would be refunded. The complainant’s ward had cleared / successfully completed Class - XII in the academic session 2019-2020 and in his transfer certificate issued by the School, it was duly mentioned that all his dues have been cleared. Upon asking for refund of security deposit, the complainant was told that demand draft towards security deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- would be sent to him. However, inspite of several requests by the complainant, the security deposit was not refunded by the School. A registered notice was sent by the complainant through his counsel to the School, but inspite of due service of notice, the security deposit was not refunded to the complainant. Thus, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the School, consumer complaint was submitted by the complainant before the District Commission.

3. The appellant / opposite party filed written statement before the District Commission and pleaded that an agreement dated 03.04.2018 was executed between the complainant and the School. Clause No. 4 of the agreement provides that “any arrears in the account of the student will be adjusted from the security deposit”. Clause No. 15 of the agreement states that in the event of any dispute, difference or question arising out of or in respect of this agreement, the same shall be referred to arbitration, hence the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction in the matter. A sum of Rs.1,29,949.33/- was payable by the complainant towards the imprest account of the student on the day of his leaving the School and after adjusting the said sum, an amount of Rs.20,050.67/- only was payable by the School, which was duly intimated vide notice dated 11.07.2021 sent by counsel for the School to the counsel of the complainant. The School was well within its right to recover Rs.1,29,949.33/- out of the security amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and the School has always volunteered to pay the amount of Rs.20,050.67/-. The Commission has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case, hence the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The District Commission, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the material available on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned judgment and order dated 26.11.2022 in the above terms. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the School has preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for respondent / complainant submitted that the amount of Rs.1,29,949.33/- , as claimed by the School to be due against the ward of the complainant, has already been paid by the complainant to the School, but the School has