Educational institutions do not fall under consumer protection jurisdiction unless rendering a defined service. This principle applies to fee refund complaints.

University of Petroleum & Energy Studies (UPES), New Delhi has filed the present Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “the Act”), against the Order dated 20.03.2013, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”), whereby the First Appeal No. 917 of 2012 preferred by the Petitioner herein has been dismissed and the Order dated 10.07.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI (Distt. New Delhi) (hereinafter referred to as “the District Forum”) allowing the Complaint has been affirmed.

2. Briefly stated that the facts giving rise to the present Petition are as follows:

3. According to the Complainant Shri Anuj Kanwal, he took admission in B. Tech in the Petitioner Institute and deposited the required fee, but on account of some personal issue he could not join the same and requested the Petitioner/ Opposite Party for the withdrawal of the admission and also fees. Out of the total fee paid by the Complainant/ Respondent, an amount of Rs.7,500/- for PDP has not been refunded, Rs.5,900/- for the computing fee was also not refunded and similarly Rs.90,750/- as directed by UGC is not refunded. The Complainant claimed the refund of Rs.1,04,150/-.

4. During the course of proceedings before the District Forum, the Petitioner/ Opposite Party appeared on 09.03.2012 and made a statement that the matter has been mutually agreed to refund the money. It may be mentioned here that on that date, the Petitioner/ Opposite Party has not filed the Written Statement nor at any stage of proceedings, later on, before the District Forum.

5. The District Forum, on the basis of mutual Agreement between the Parties, decided the case on 10.07.2012 and issued the following directions:

“We direct OP to refund Rs.1,04,150/- after deducting Rs.1,000/- as per u.G.C. guidelines and we also award Rs.5,000/- as litigation and harassment charges”

6. Feeling aggrieved by the Order dated 10.07.2012 passed by the District Forum the Petitioner herein preferred Appeal before the State Commission. As already mentioned hereinbefore the State Commission vide Order dated 20.03.2013 has dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the Order passed by the District Forum.

7. Feeling aggrieved, by the Order dated 20.03.2013 passed by the State Commission, University of Petroleum & Energy Studies (UPES), New Delhi, Petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition.

8. We have heard Mr. Kapil Kher, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

9. From a perusal of the averments made in the Complaint and the Orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission we find that a Preliminary Issue arises in the present Revision Petition as to whether Educational Institutions like the Petitioner University, which is imparting Education to the students will fall under the provisions of the Consumer Protections Act, 1986 or not.

10. It may be mentioned here that this Issue has been considered and decided by 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 had 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 admis