Educational institutions are not considered 'providers of service' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and thus are not liable for fee refunds.

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 8.8.2012 passed by the Kheda District Consumer District Forum at Nadiad in Complaint Case No. 98 of 2012.

2. The appellant has preferred instant appeal on the grounds that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in law. The parties will be referred to as per their original nomenclature for the sake convenience.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under: Complainant got admission in M.B.A. through the Opponent No. 2 and also paid Rs.20,000 as fees, and after that complainant got admission in Vir Narmad South Gujarat University by reshuffling of G.T.U. And after that complainant gave one application to cancel the admission and also demanded back the Rs.20,000 but Opponent denied for that, so after that the Complainant filed the complaint for Rs.20,000 with interest of 12% and Rs.10,000 for mental agony, and the complaint was allowed and directed to pay Rs.20,000 and Rs.2,000 for mental agony.

4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. P.A. Jadeja, respondents are duly served upon but no one remains present on behalf of the respondents side.

5. Here Ld. Advocate Mr. P.A. Jadeja has submitted before me that the Consumer Court does not have a jurisdiction to entertain the compliant as the opponent No. 2 was not "Provider of Service" and complainant does not come within the purview of the "Consumer" as per the S.2(d) of Consumer Protection Act - 1986.

6. Further learned Advocate Mr. P.A. Jadeja has submitted before me that the present applicant is an institution imparting education on the self - financing in professional courses, it is specifically and respectfully drawn my attention to the judgement and order dated 8.8.2012 passed by learned Trial Forum are not tenable in eye of law and against the facts as they stand in their true perspective.

7. Further learned Advocate Mr. P.A. Jadeja for the appellant submitted before me that Respondent No. 1 had obtained admission in the management department of the South Gujarat University. The course in which the Respondent No. 1 had taken admission was a four semester course and hence the seat remains vacant for all the four semesters and it is big loss to the present appellant.

8. Learned Advocate Mr. Jadeja has raised issue in the appeal that respondent No. 1 was not able to place any document dated 2.9.2011 that he had informed the appellant regarding cancellation of his admission with the appellant, thus in absence of any evidence on record and secondly with the fact in light that the reshuffling conducted by the admission committee was held on 18.8.2011 or about the admission process for admission to MCA seats got over by 31.8.2011 there is no scope that the say of the Respondent No. 1 could be entertained. Thereby the institution is not liable to refund the fees paid by the complainant.

9. Further Mr. Jadeja has drawn my attention to the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 16885 of 2014 decided on 28.4.2015 and submitted that on issued is to dealt with whether the seat fall vacant on account of cancellation of admission of the petitioner was filled in is specifically denied by the university. The petitioner has not been able to establish that the same was filled in while interpreting the Rules of Cancellation of Admission, the same clearly provides for a condition that vacated seat is to be filled up by another candidate.

10. Thereby considering this factual aspect, the respondent No. 1 prayed for cancel the admission and the seat will remain vacant and after that it cannot be possible to refund the fees as per the said order.

11. Learned Advocate Mr.