Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Not mentioned, ACJ
Kailashchandra Bansal College of Technology v. Deepika Chauksey
Headnote: Read headnote
1. This Revision Petition has been filed by Kailashchandra Bansal Collage of Technology (hereinafter referred to as ,the Petitioner Institute) under S.21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challanging the Order dated 7.5.2016, passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (herein after referred to as the State Commission), whereby the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner herein dismissed and the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal was upheld.
2. The facts giving rise to the present Revision Petition are that the Complainant / Respondent herein got admission in MBA 2nd year in the Petitioner Institute and deposited a fee of Rs. 32,300 on 3.10.2009. Thereafter, on 29.10.2009, she applied for withdrawal from the course citing that the course was very difficult. On 16.11.2009, her
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 a....
Forfeiture of entire fees paid by student on withdrawal from course within a fortnight of joining is unjustified but amounts to unjust enrichment.
Educational institutions do not qualify as service providers under the Consumer Protection Act, rendering complaints against them unmaintainable.
Educational institutions are not considered 'providers of service' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and thus are not liable for fee refunds.
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.
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
Listen Article