ORDER

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:

38.     Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in Revision Petition Nos. 2955 to 2963 of 2018 submitted that once the University is declared as ‘Deemed University’ all functions and activities governed by the University Grants Commission Act (UGC Act), fall within the definition of ‘Authority’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and would be amenable only to the jurisdiction of the High Court. It is contended that even if the Education Institutions do not have a proper affiliation, Consumer Fora do not have jurisdiction to entertain the same. In our view even if an Institution imparting education does not have a proper affiliation in imparting education, it is not rendering any service and, therefore, will be out of the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

39.     Learned Counsel appearing for the Petiti