ORDER

1.       The present Revision Petition has been filed by Director of Xavier Institute of Management & Entrepreneurship Kinfra Hi-Tech Park (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner Institute) and two others, the Opposite Parties in the Complaint, against the Order dated 04.06.2021 passed by the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal No. 373 of 2018, by which the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner Institute, and affirmed the Order dated 27.03.2018, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puri (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) in Consumer Complaint No.126 of 2017, preferred by the Complainant/Respondent herein.  By the said Order, the District Commission had allowed the Complaint ex-parte against the Opposite Parties/Petitioners herein and directed them to jointly and severally refund a sum of Rs.1,54,000/- to the Complainant/Respondent with interest @ 9% per annum from 01.05.2017 till the date of actual payment as also pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation costs.  

2.       The facts in brief are that on 15.06.2015 the Complainant/Respondent had taken admission in the Petitioner Institute to pursue PGDM Programme Course and had deposited fees of Rs.3,10,200/- against proper receipt.  It is stated in the Complaint that the Complainant/Respondent was compelled to stay in the Hostel of the Petitioner Institute and take meals from the Hostel mess, as the students were not allowed to take food from outside or use the same in the Hostel room.  After consuming spicy food and contaminated water, the Complainant/Respondent suffered a number of ailments, including severe stomach pain and gastric problems.  The Doctor at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar opined that he was suffering with Colitis due to taking of spicy food and contaminated water. The Complainant/Respondent was unable to stay in the Hostel and continue the course in the Petitioner Institute at Kochi, Kerala and requested the Opposite Parties/Petitioners herein to return back the money paid by him.  A cheque dated 12.02.2016 amounting to Rs.31,000/- was sent by the Opposite Parties/Petitioners herein to the Complainant/Respondent by speed post on 25.04.2016, without explaining the manner of calculation.  As the validity period of three months was over, the Bank did not honour the said cheque.  In this view of the matter, the Complainant/Respondent filed the afore-noted Complaint before the District Commission, praying for certain reliefs.

3.       As noted above, the District Commission, while allowing the Complaint ex-parte against the Opposite Parties/Petitioners herein, had issued the aforesaid directions to them. 

4.       Feeling aggrieved with the Order passed by the District Commission, the Opposite Parties/Petitioners herein filed the Appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission by the Impugned Order has dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the Order passed by the District Commission.   Hence, the present Revision Petition.

5.       From a perusal of the Order passed by the District 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  afore