ORDER

Mr. M. Palanivel, Petitioner herein has approached this Commission by filing the present Revision Petition under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) whereby the State Commission had affirmed the Order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuddalore and held that the Complaint is not maintainable.

The Order passed by the State Commission does not suffer any legal infirmity as the 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, has held that Educational Services do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The 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 Petitioner in Revision Petition No. 222 of 2015 vehemently contended that the Complainant had taken admission in             B. Ed. course of the Opposite Party on the assurance that the said college  was recognized  by National Council of Technical Education (NCTE) and affiliated with the Opposite Party No. 2, Uttrakhand Technical University, who subsequently came to know that the Institute was not recognized by NCTE and therefore sought for refund of the fees. Whether such an unfair trade practice post admission would fall within the ambit of the Act needs to be seen. As the Institution is imparting education though it has been not recognized by the National Council of Technical Education, it would not make any difference because it will be covered under the education. Thus, the said Institute would not be rendering any service as defined in the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

40.     There may be instances where there may be defect/deficiency of service in pre-admission stages by an educational Institution but as the educational Institutions are not rendering any service by imparting education, these instances will also not give any right for a person to approach the Consumer Fora under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

41.     Learned Counsel for the Educational Institution in Revision Petition No.  1731 to 1733 of 2017 argued that imparting education in a school is not limited to teaching in a class room and involves within its ambit other co-curricular activities including taking out the students for educational trips etc., for their overall growth and development and improvement of their faculties.  In that matter, the children were taken by the Respondents for an “educational excursion trip” to a place of historical importance, and it was contended that, any shortcoming or negligence during the course of such an act falls within the definition of imparting education and therefore shall not fall within the domain of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986. Another issue which was raised is with r