M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

APPEAL NO. 1258/2015 Aman Shroff S/o Sunil Shroff R/o – 44, “Aashirwad”, Itwara Nagjhiri, Burhanpur District Burhanpur (M.P.) – 450 331 ... Appellant VERSUS.

1. The Principle (Mr. Bharat S. Choudhary)

International Institute of Information Technology P-14, Rajeev Gandhi Infor Tech Park MIDC – Face I, Hinjwadi Pune (Maharashtra)

2. Director Technical Education State of Maharashtra, Mumbai-3, Mahapalika Marg, Post Box No. 1967 Mumbai – 400 001 ... Respondents BEFORE;

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

SHRI MANOJ AGRAWAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.

MS. BHARTI GANGWAL, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARS ON BEHALF OF SHRI ASHISH BARGALE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS.

O R D E R

( 20.01.2026 )

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr.

Monika Malik, Member.

This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’), is directed against the order dated 24.9.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Burhanpur (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 26/2014, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by him.

2. Heard. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for complainant argued that the complainant had requested the opposite parties/Institute regarding cancellation of his admission on 24.8.2012, i.e. 7 days before the cut off date - 31.8.2012. Therefore, he ought to have been refunded the amount deposited by him, after deducting Rs.1,000/-, as cancellation charges. However, the opposite parties/Institute refunded only Rs.41,000/- and remaining Rs.69,000/- were not refunded. He, therefore, alleged deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties/Institute and prayed that the impugned order be set aside. He referred judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Course Coordinator and Centre In-charge vs. Reshmi Dutta (2011)

04 NCDRC CK 0028, to support his arguments.

4. The opposite parties/Institute filed written arguments wherein it is stated that the complainant has tried to mislead the Commission by stating that the cut off date was 31.8.2012, whereas in reality, the original cut off date was 25.8.2012. 31.8.2012 is the last date for administrative requirement for the institute for filing/uploading the document on DTE’s website. The complainant had applied for withdrawal of admission on 24.8.2012, i.e. hardly 24 hours prior to cut off date. Due to withdrawal of admission by the complainant, the vacancy created in the said academic year remained vacant. Therefore, refund after applying Situation No.3 was given. In addition hostel charges were also refunded. He referred judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.T. Koshy and Anr. vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC) Maharshi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 and submitted that education is not a commodity and educational institutions are not providing any kind of service. Therefore, in the matters of admission/fees etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum, constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

5. The complainant had approached the District Commission on the ground that he had enrolled for the academic year 2012-13 in the opposite parties/Institute and had deposited Rs.1,11,000/- in aforesaid regard. Complainant’s parents were not able to obtain education loan from the Bank. He therefore immediately requested the opposite parties/Institute on 24.8.2012, i.e. 7 days before the cut off date of 31.8.2012, regarding cancellation of his admission from their Institute. The opposite parties/Institute however, refunded only Rs.41,000/-. The complainant alleged that when he had applied for cancellation before the cut off date, the vaca