1.       The present Appeal has been filed by the original Complainant against the Order dated 24.06.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Complaint Case No. 57 of 2013.  By the Impugned Order, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint, preferred by the Appellant herein, holding that she has failed to establish that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties/Respondents herein.

2.       In order to pursue BBA Course, the Complainant/Appellant had taken admission in the A.V. Baliga Commerce College, Kumata, Uttara Kannada, Karnataka, Opposite Party/Respondent No.2 herein (hereinafter referred to as the Institute),  by paying the requisite fee and completing the other formalities.  She had appeared in 4^th Semester Exam.  It is alleged by the Complainant/Appellant that the Institute intentionally failed her in 3 Subjects and not permitted her to appear in 5^th Semester.  In the QT Exam of 4^th Semester she had been given 19 marks instead of 20 marks, for which she complained to the HOD who directed the Principal of the Institute to give her 20 marks instead of 19 marks.  However, the Institute had not passed the Complainant.  Accordingly, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties/Respondents herein, including the Institute, the Complainant/Appellant filed the afore-noted Complaint before the State Commission, praying for certain reliefs.    

3.       Upon notice, both the Opposite Parties/Respondents contested the Complaint and filed their respective Written Statements. 

4.       The State Commission on appraisal of the material available before it came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties/Respondents herein and, therefore, the Complainant/Appellant was not entitled to get the huge compensation as claimed.  The State Commission accordingly dismissed the Complaint.

5.       Feeling aggrieved with the Order dated 24.06.2021 passed by the State Commission, the Appellant has filed the present Appeal.

6.       From a perusal of the Complaint, Written Version, the documents filed by the respective Parties and the Order passed by the State Commission, 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 Vs. Vinayak Mission University and other connected cases, 1(2020) CPJ, 2010, wherein the Larger Bench has held that Educational matters do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 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