Educational institutions do not qualify as service providers under the Consumer Protection Act, rendering complaints against them unmaintainable.

ORDER :

K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.

1. The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(MD)No.996 of 2019 is directed against the order passed in C.C.No.12 of 2018, dated 26.02.2019, on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sivagangai District.

2. The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(MD)No.3324 of 2023 is directed against the order passed in F.A.No153 of 2019, dated 31.07.2023, on the file of the Circuit Bench of State Consumer Dispues Redressal Commission, Madurai.

3. The first respondent is the complainant and he filed a complaint against the second respondent and the revision petitioners before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Sivagangai District claiming compensation for the deficiency in service. The case of the complainant is that he has completed 10^th std., and pre-degree course offered by Annamalai University, which is equivalent to 12^th std., as per G.O.Ms.No. 219 issued by the State Government, that after coming to know about the advertisement given by the Distance Education Centre, he applied to the course of B.Sc., Hospital Management and was given admission for the academic year 2017, for which he had paid a sum of Rs.9,500/- as first year Course fee and he had also be given study materials, that the complainant has applied for hall ticket on 19.04.2018, but the same was not furnished, that on enquiry with the second respondent, he was informed that there was confusion in his admission, that the first revision petitioner, vide letter dated 14.05.2019, has informed that the complainant is not eligible for pursuing the said Course and in spite of the explanation given by the complainant, the first revision petitioner refused to accept his admission, that the above action has caused mental agony and that since they have committed deficiency of service, he was forced to file a complaint claiming Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to him.

4. It is evident from the records that the second respondent herein who is the first respondent in the main complaint has filed a counter statement. But since she has not participated in the trial, she was set exparte. The revision petitioners who are the respondents 2 and 3 in the main complaint have remained exparte and hence, the District Consumer Forum has passed an exparte award dated 26.02.2019 directing the respondents 1 to 3 in the main complaint to pay Rs.9,500/- with interest at 9%p.a., from the date of complaint till the date of award and also to pay the compensation at Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-, all within six weeks, failing which they are liable to pay interest at 9.5% p.a.

5. The revision petitioners, aggrieved by the impugned award, have filed the present revision mainly contending that the District Forum has no jurisdiction, that the complaint filed before the District Forum is not maintainable and as such, the award passed by the District Forum, dated 26.02.2019 is a nullity.

6. It is also not in dispute that the revision petitioners have preferred an appeal challenging the exparte award dated 26.02.2019 before the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in F.A.No.153 of 2019. When the appeal was posted for orders on 05.04.2022, the revision petitioners, by alleging that they have not submitted their arguments, filed an application in C.M.P.No.76/2022 to re-open the appeal along with their side written arguments. But subsequently, the application for re-opening was dismissed for non- prosecution and consequently, the appeal was dismissed for default. Challenging the dismissal of the appeal, the revision in C.R.P.(MD)No.3324 of