Educational institutions are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as they do not render services per its definition.

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by Rai Technology University (hereinafter referred to as the University), the Opposite Party in the Complaint, against the Order dated 29/03/2021 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal No. 44 of 2020, by which the State Commission, while upholding the Order dated 04/12/2019 passed by the Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) in Complaint Case No. 15 of 2018 preferred by the Complainant / Respondent herein, has dismissed the Appeal, filed by the University. By its Order dated 04/12/2019, the District Commission had partly allowed the Complaint filed by the Complainant / Respondent herein and directed the University to refund a sum of Rs.10,000 within 30 days, failing which interest @ 10% was directed to be paid from the date of the said Order till realization.

2. The Complainant / Respondent herein, who wanted to get admission in the University for B.Sc. Agriculture Course in the academic year 2018-19, had deposited an advance money of Rs.10,000 for the said purpose with the University before the onset of the admission process. After few days, the Complainant / Respondent noticed that the admission process was not started by the University and upon enquiry she came to know that the University had not obtained the UGC approval for the said Course. When she approached the University, no convincing reply was given to her. She requested for refund of advance amount paid to the University but her request was not acceded to. Accordingly, the Complainant / Respondent filed the afore - noted Complaint before the District Commission, praying for refund of advance amount deposited with the University with interest @ 18% p.a. from 04/06/2018 till payment of the said amount.

3. As noted above, the District Commission, while partly allowing the Complaint, had issued the aforesaid directions to the University.

4. Feeling aggrieved with the Order passed by the District Commission, the University filed the Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission by the Impugned Order has dismissed the Appeal, upholding the Order passed by the District Commission. Hence, the present Revision Petition by the University.

5. From a perusal of the Complaint and the Orders passed by the For a below, I find that the Preliminary Issue as to whether Educational Institutions providing Education and other Incidental Activities to the students come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 or not arises in this Case and the said issue is squarely covered by the decision of a Larger Bench of three Members of this Commission in the case of Manu Solanki and Others v. Vinayak Mission University and other connected cases, 2020 (I) CPJ 210 (NC), wherein the Larger Bench has held that Educational matters do not come within the purview of the , 1986 and, therefore, the Complaint is not maintainable. Relevant portion of the Order is reproduced below for ready reference:
"37. The following legal issues arise from the submissions made by the rival parties and the aforenoted decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
Would any defects / deficiency / unfair trade practice indulged by the Educational Institutions post admission, which does not fall within the 'course of imparting knowledge' till the degree is conferred, falls within the ambit of the definition of Education?
If we apply the definition of Education, imparting knowledge for full potential, will that criterion apply to the admission stage, when the foundation for admission itself is deficient?
'Would preferential activities for extracurricular activities, which do