ORAL

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.2364 of 2004

1- BDS Institute of Management, Sector-8,

    in fornt of Jagrity Vihar Medical College, Meerut

    through Dr. Naresh Gil, Director.

2- Dharmendra Kumar, Chairman, BDS Institute

    of Management, Sector-8,

    in fornt of Jagrity Vihar Medical College, Meerut.

                                                                           ….Appellants. 

Versus

Indraveer Singh s/o Sri Onkar Singh,

R/o B-30, Defence Colony, Mawana Road,

Meerut.                                                             …Respondent.

Appeal No.83 of 2005

Indraveer Singh aged about29 years,

S/o Sri Onkar Singh, R/o B-30, Defense

Colony, Mawana Road, Meerut                          ….Appellant.   

Versus

1- BDS Institute of Management, Sector-8,

    Jagrity Vihar  Opp. Medical College, Meerut

    through Dr. Naresh Gill .

2- Dharmendra Kumar, Chairman, BDS Institute

    of Management, Meerut.                             …Respondents.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri Vikas Agarwal, Advocate for the complainant Sri Indraveer Singh.

Sri Manoj Mohan, Advocate for BDS Institute of Management.

Date 30.7.2021

JUDGMENT

Sri Sushil Kumar,  Member- Appeal no.2364 of 2004, BDS Institute of Management & anr. Vs. Indraveer Singh and

(2)

Appeal No.83 of 2005, Indraveer Singh vs. BDS Institute of Management & anr. are cross appeals and have arisen out of the judgment and order dated 20.11.2004 in complaint case no.20 of 2003 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Forum, Meerut. The appeal filed by the BDS Institute of Management is for setting aside the impugned judgment and order; whereas its cross appeal No.83 of 2005 is for enhancement of the decretal amount. Since both the appeals are supplementary and complimentary to each other, therefore, both the appeals are are being disposed of by this common judgment.

          According to the complaint case, the complainant took admission for Post Graduate Diploma in the institure of the opposite parties by paying Rs.90000.00. The complainant appeared in all the semester’s examination conducted by the institute but mark-sheet was not provided to the complainant. The opposite parties never intended to offer PGDBM and falsely induced the complainant to take admission, therefore, he is not interested in dealing with the opposite parties’ institute any further. Therefore, filed this complaint for relief of return of Rs.90000.00 alongwith interest @ 18% and Rs.2 lacs as damages for physical and mental harassment alongwith cost of Rs.2400.00.

          The opposite parties admitted this fact that the complainant took admission after depositing fees but he did not appear in all the papers prescribed for the examination. He appeared only in 3 back papers out of required 7 back papers and institute never denied to supply of mark sheet to the complainant.

(3)

          Upon considering the evidence of the parties, the ld. District Forum, Meerut allowed the complaint and passed the above mentioned order. The complainant himself filed appeal no.83 of 2005 for enhancement of compensation and the opposite parties filed appeal no.2364 of 2004 for quashing the impugned order on the ground that the order passed by the ld. District Forum is illegal. The complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

          We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record alongwith the impugned judgment and order.  

          The ld. Counsel for the institute argued that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the institute/opposite parties. He relied upon a ruling passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihar School Examination Board vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC) whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that students appearing in examination not consumer. Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act not maintainable.

In another case Manu Solanki & ors. vs. Vinayak Mission University, it was held that education is not a commodity and educational institutions are not providing any kind of service.

In an another case Seth Srinivas Agarwal Institute of Engineering and Technology vs. Raj Ratan Baudh, IV(2020) CPJ 78 (UP), this Commission held that the institutions providing education not covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

(4)

    Considering above mentioned laws, we are of the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the ld. District Forum, Meerut is contrary to the provisions of law, hence deserved to be quashed.  

ORDER

The Appeal no.2364 of 2004, BDS Institute of Management & anr. Vs. Indraveer Singh is allowed and the judgment and order dated 20.11.2004 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Forum, Meerut in complaint case no.20 of 2003 is set aside. Appeal No.83 of 2005, Indraveer Singh vs. BDS Institute of Management & anr. is dismissed.

The original judgment be kept in the Appeal No. 2364 of 2004 and a copy of the same be kept in the record of Appeal No.83 of 2005.

         The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.       

       (Rajendra Singh)                              (Sushil Kumar)

     Presiding  Member                                    Member

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to record.

       (Rajendra Singh)                              (Sushil Kumar)

     Presiding  Member                                    Member

Jafri, PA II

Court 3