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

2002 Supreme(HP) 248

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
SURINDER SARUP,ONKAR CHAND THAKUR,PREM CHAUHAN
ROHIT MAHAJAN - Appellant
Versus
DAV COLLEGE MANAGEMENT COMMI. - Respondent
Original Complaint No. 09 of 2000
Decided On : 09/09/2002

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. A.K. Bansal, Advocate, for the complainant. Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate, for the respondents.

The Consumer Protection Act does not apply to disputes regarding education involving educational institutions.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act - Education - Not applicable

Fact of the Case:

The complainant alleged that he was not allowed to attend classes at a school and filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the complainant's academic performance was unsatisfactory and that he had already been admitted to another school, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

Issues: Dispute over the complainant's right to attend classes and the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act to educational institutions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant's case did not fall under the definition of a consumer, and the educational dispute was outside the jurisdiction of the consumer court.

Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed as misconceived and not maintainable.

ORDER

Justice Surinder Sarup (Retd.). President; - The present complaint is against the D.A.V. College Management committee which is stated to be a registered society and the D.AV. ACC Sr. Public Secondary School, Barmana, District Bilaspur through its Principal as well as the Local management committee of the said School through its Chairman.

2. According to the complainant, he has been a student of the said school right from the inception and has had a good academic career also. However, due to unfavourable circumstances, he could not prepare himself for the annual examination in the academic year 1999-2000 and thus failed in the same. He again took admission in the same class i.e. +1, but the opposite party No.2 i.e. the principal of the said school has not allowed him to join the classes or even visit the school, which is arbitrary on his part. On 26.4.2000, the peon of the school forcibly sent the complainant out of its premises by using un-parliamentary language regarding which report was lodged with the police, copy Annexure c-3. Despite all the efforts made by the complainant and his parents for letting him attend his classes, including meeting members of the Local Management Committee of the School, he has not been allowed to attend his classes. On this pleaded facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service as well as restrictive trade practice as defined under the consumer protection Act, 1986, hereinafter to be called the Act. He has also stated that he is a consumer as defined under section 2(c ) of the Act. Hence, the complaint, whereby he has quantified his claim against the opposite parties in the total sum of Rs. 5,61,350/-. The complaint is supported by the affidavit of Ms. Veena Mahajan wife of Shri Susheel Mahajan, in her capacity of being the mother and natural guardian of the complainant who is stated to be a minor.

3. The opposite parties have filed a reply whereby various preliminary objections have been taken. It has been stated that the complainant is neither the consumer nor they are providing service as defined under the Act. Also, it has been the consistent view of the National commission as well as various state commissions that education and educational institutions are outside the scope of the Act. According to the opposite parties, they are imparting education which is a social utility service and hence the consumer court has no jurisdiction in the matter. Secondly, it has been stated that the complainant1 has no cause of action as the complaint discloses no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice against them. It has been stated in the reply that throughout the academic session 19999-2000, the performance of the complainant as a student has been unsatisfactory. He had failed to obtain pass percentage in the Unit Tests, 1st Terminals and the final examination. The progress report of the complainant in this behalf and his final result card have been attached as Annexure R-1 and R-2 with the reply. It has further been stated that his performance report was well within his knowledge as well as his parents. It has also been stated that having failed in class-1x, he was advised by the principal of the said school to change from the science to the Arts stream which he flatly refused and insisted for readmission to the science stream. It was in this background that he was readmitted to science stream subject to the condition that his parents undertake that he would maintain discipline and his academic performance would be under scrutiny. Instead of giving such an undertaking, they lodged a false and frivolous complaint against the school with the Barmana Police station,. Bilaspur on 26.4.2000. As a result, the opposite party No.2 i.e. the Principal was compelled to send a communication dated 27.4.2000 by registered post to the father of the complainant intimating him that his performance would be under scrutiny and his admission form may be filled-in. Copy of the same is Annexure R-3 and



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