Back
2020 Supreme(HP) 290
BEFORE THE HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHIMLA
P.S. RANA, PRESIDENT AND SUNITA SHARMA, MEMBER
Padmawati Balaji Institute Sanjay Sadan Chotta Shimla - Appellant
Versus
Manish Mehta and Ors. - Respondents
First Appeal No. 89 of 2017
Decided On : 03-01-2020
For the Appellant :Peeyush Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Anil Tomar, Advocate and Shashi Bhushan vice Priyanka Advocate.
Private coaching centers fall within the domain of consumer authorities and are liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
Consumer Complaint - Consumer Protection Act - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 14(1)(d), Section 21(b)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, including the definition of consumer, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, and the jurisdiction of consumer authorities. The court emphasized that private coaching centers fall within the domain of consumer authorities and are not exempt from liability under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant sought relief for non-delivery of BBA mark sheet, loss of admission to an MBA course, and financial and academic losses due to the actions of the opposite parties. The District Consumer Forum ordered the opposite party to pay damages and litigation costs to the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission affirmed the order of the District Consumer Forum, emphasizing that the coaching center was liable for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The court held that the complainant's losses warranted compensation and that the coaching center could not escape liability for directly receiving consideration from the complainant.
Issues: Liability of the coaching center under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, non-delivery of mark sheet, loss of admission, and financial and academic losses suffered by the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The coaching center, as a private entity directly receiving consideration from the complainant, falls within the jurisdiction of consumer authorities and is liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the District Consumer Forum was affirmed. The coaching center was directed to pay damages and litigation costs to the complainant.
ORDER :
P.S. Rana, President
1. Present appeal is filed against order dated 26.09.2016 passed by Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission in consumer complaint No. 147/2012 titled Munish Mehta v. Jai Sood Director and others.
Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Shri Manish Mehta Complainant filed consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act pleaded therein that opposite party No. 1 is running institute in the name and style of Padmawati Balaji Institute for conducing regular MBA and BBA courses. It is pleaded that complainant was admitted for BBA course of three years for session 2007-2010 and complainant deposited fee for the said course vide annexures C1 to C4 placed on record. It is pleaded that complainant successfully completed BBA course in the month of October 2010 and was declared passed. It is further pleaded that certificate was not issued to complainant by opposite parties till filing of consumer complaint. It is pleaded that complainant provisionally got admission in LLR Educational Trust for MBA course and deposited a sum of Rs. 32950/- (Thirty two thousand nine hundred fifty). It is pleaded that complainant was admitted in MBA course subject to the condition that complainant would supply BBA mark sheet within three months from the date of provisional admission. It is further pleaded that opposite parties did not supply mark sheet to complainant and complainant could not furnish mark sheet to LLR Educational Trust within stipulated period and consequently complainant was not allowed to continue with the course of MBA and complainant could not complete his academic session. It is pleaded that opposite parties committed deficiency in service and also indulged in unfair trade practice.
3. Complainant sought relief of Rs. 50000/- (Fifty thousand) on account of loss caused to complainant due to non delivery of BBA final year mark sheet for Academic year 2007-2010. In addition complainant sought relief for payment of Rs. 32950/- (Thirty two thousand nine hundred fifty) deposited by complainant for MBA course with LLR Educational Trust which was lapsed due to act of opposite parties. In addition complainant sought relief to the tune of Rs. 25000/- (Twenty five thousand) on account of expenditure incurred during stay of complainant at Solan for his MBA course in LLR Educational Trust. In addition complainant sought relief of Rs. 500000/- (Five lac) on account of academic loss, financial loss and mental agony. In addition complainant sought costs of litigation to the tune of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand). Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
4. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1 pleaded therein that present consumer complaint is not maintainable against opposite parties. It is pleaded that opposite party No. 1 had no roll for issuance of certificate: It is pleaded that certificate is issued by opposite parties No. 2 & 3 through IITM Delhi. It is further pleaded that out of deposited amount 60% of amount used to go to IITM Delhi. It is pleaded that complainant has no cause of action against opposite party No. 1. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
5. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite parties No. 2 & 3 pleaded therein that complainant was not student of Annamalai University at all. It is further pleaded that complainant did not pay any consideration amount to opposite parties No. 2 & 3 directly. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint against opposite parties No. 2 & 3 sought.
6. On dated 26.08.2013 learned DCF/DCC dismissed consumer complaint for default. Thereafter complainant filed F.A. No. 335/2013 before State Commission which was disposed of on 21.04.2014. State Commission on dated 21.04.2014 restored the consumer complaint to its original number and directed parties to appear before learned DCF/DCC Shimla on 14.05.2014. Thereafter learned DCF/DCC disposed of consumer complaint afresh on dated 26.09.2016. Learned DCF/DCC ordered opposite party
