STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/96/2017 DIRECTOR PRESENT ADDRESS - IGNOU,NEW DELHI,KERALA.

REGIONAL DIRECTOR PRESENT ADDRESS - IGNOU,NUT STREET,VATAKARA,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus SREERANJINI.K.P PRESENT ADDRESS - SREE VIHAR KSUP SCHOOL.P.O,ANCHAMPEEDIKA,KANNUR,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 10/02/2026

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.96/2017 ORDER DATED : 10.02.2026 (Against the order in C.C.No.318/2013 on the files of DCDRC, Kannur)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANTS:

1.

Director, Indira Gandhi National Open University, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110068 (Represented by the second appellant, Regional Director, IGNOU)

2.

Regional Director, IGNOU Regional Centre, Madhavi Building, Nut Street, Vatakara - 673104 (by Adv. Jwala as Amicus Curiae)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Sreeranjini.K.P, “Sreevihar”, Nr.KSUP School.P.O, Anchampeedika,

Kannur

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in C.C.No.318/2013 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur (for short, the ‘District Commission’).

2. The complainant alleges deficiency in service against the opposite parties in connection with the education of the complainant in a post graduate course under Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU). The opposite parties filed version before the District Commission.

3. Before the District Commission, PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked for the complainant. DW1 was examined and Exhibits B1 to B5 were marked for the opposite parties. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand only) to the complainant along with costs of Rs.2,000/-.

4. Service is complete. However, there is no representation for the opposite parties. Since there was no representation for the appellants continuously, this Commission appointed Adv. Jwala as Amicus Curiae to argue the case for the appellants as per proceedings dated 23.09.2025.

5. Heard the learned Amicus Curie and perused the records.

6. The learned Amicus Curie has submitted that since the dispute involved in this case pertains to the education of the complainant under a recognized university and the opposite parties are respectively the director and the regional director of the said university, the consumer complaint filed in this case is not maintainable in view of the decision of the National Commission in Manu Solanki and others vs. Vinayaka Mission University reported in 1 (2020) CPJ 210 (NC). In paragraph 51 of the Manu Solanki and others (supra), the National Commission held as hereinbelow:-

“51. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion, tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport etc. except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act”.

7. It is clear from the records that the first appellant is the director and the second appellant is the regional director of Indira Gandhi National Open University, which is a recognized university, and the matter pertains to the education of the complainant in the said university.

8. Since the subject-matter in the present case is education and the opposite parties are respectively the director and the regional director of the university, the consumer complaint filed by the complainant