Education Not A 'Service' Under Consumer Protection Act; Student's Complaint Against Institute Dismissed: Rajasthan State Consumer Commission - 2025-07-26

Education Not a 'Service'; Consumer Forums Can't Hear Fee & Admission Disputes: Rajasthan State Commission

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jodhpur Bench, has overturned a District Forum's order, ruling that educational institutions do not fall under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for matters concerning admissions, fees, and the awarding of degrees.

A bench comprising President, Justice Devendra Kachhawaha and Judicial Member, Urmila Verma , allowed an appeal filed by the Footwear Design and Development Institute (FDDI). The Commission set aside the District Forum's decision that had directed FDDI to refund fees to a former student, Harshita Daga. The ruling was based on a binding Supreme Court precedent that establishes education as a noble cause, not a commercial "service."

Background of the Dispute

The case originated from a complaint filed by Harshita Daga, who enrolled in FDDI's four-year Bachelor of Fashion Design program at its Jodhpur campus in 2014. She alleged that the institute engaged in unfair trade practices and a deficiency of service.

According to Daga, FDDI promised a recognized degree upon completion of the course. However, after paying fees totaling ₹2,11,700 over three semesters, she discovered that the institute lacked the necessary affiliations to award a degree and would only provide a diploma. She also claimed that the quality of education was substandard, with a lack of experienced faculty and proper facilities, contrary to the promises made during counseling. This misrepresentation, she argued, wasted two years of her academic life and jeopardized her future career prospects.

The District Consumer Forum, Jodhpur, had ruled in her favor on December 14, 2022, leading to the present appeal by FDDI.

Arguments in the State Commission

FDDI challenged the District Forum's order on the fundamental ground of jurisdiction. Their counsel argued:

* The complaint was not maintainable as educational institutions are not "service providers" and students are not "consumers" under the Consumer Protection Act.

* The dispute revolved around the institute's degree-awarding status, an issue that was already the subject of litigation in various High Courts and the Supreme Court after the University Grants Commission (UGC) invalidated FDDI's MoU with Mewar University.

* They cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Anupama College of Engineering vs. Gulshan Kumar & Anr. (2017) , which held that education is not a commodity and matters of fees and admissions cannot be adjudicated by consumer forums.

In response, Harshita Daga's counsel argued that FDDI had admitted its affiliation issues and had misled students. They presented older Supreme Court judgments, including Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital vs. Bhupesh Khurana (2009) , which had previously held that educational institutions could be held liable for deficiency in service.

The Commission's Verdict and Reasoning

The State Commission meticulously analyzed the conflicting legal precedents presented by both parties. It noted that while Daga's counsel cited judgments from 2009 and 2015, the precedent relied upon by FDDI was a more recent and therefore more binding decision from 2017.

The Commission highlighted that the Anupama College case explicitly overruled the earlier view. Quoting the Supreme Court, the Commission reiterated:

“...education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”

The bench concluded that the District Forum had erred in law by not applying this established principle. "In our humble opinion, the learned District Consumer Commission has made a mistake of fact and law in passing the impugned judgment," the order stated.

Final Decision and Implications

Setting aside the District Forum's order, the State Commission allowed FDDI's appeal. However, recognizing the student's predicament, the Commission granted Harshita Daga the liberty to approach a competent civil court for redressal of her grievances.

In the interest of justice, the Commission directed that the time she spent pursuing her case in the consumer forums should be considered for condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The appeal was decided with no order as to costs.