BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
I.A. No. 126/2018
in
C.C. No. 284/2017
ORDER DATED: 09.07.2018
Complainant:
Abdul Sathar, T.C 43/40, Kuttivilakom Thottam, Manacaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 009.
(Party in person)
Opposite party:
Director, Akash Institute, Sabari Heights, 1st Floor, Convent Road, General Hospital Junction, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001.
(By Adv. Vivek. R)
ORDER
This I.A filed by the opposite party to hear the question of maintainability on the ground that it is well settled law that education is not a commodity and educational institutions are not providing any kind of service and imparting of education by the educational institutions for consideration does not fall within the ambit of service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore the question of deficiency of service does not arise at all in the present case. Hence such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the same view was taken in one of the case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the same view was also relied upon by the other various Hon’ble Tribunal/Court/Forum, which are as beneath. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. decided on 09.08.2012 held as under: “In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 wherein this court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that 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”. In a recent decision, District Consumer Redressal Forum, Panchkula, while following the law laid down by Apex Court in P.T. Koshy case, dismissed the consumer complaint No. 38/2017 entitled Ms. Heena Vs. Aakash Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. on 21.11.2017 on merit while observing that: “4. The cue to the controversy about the maintainability of an identical complaint before the Consumer Forum is to be found in the law laid down by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 22532/2012 (P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust and others) decided on 09.08.2012. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that education is not a commodity, that educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, that there cannot be a question of deficiency in the matter of admission, fee etc. and that matters pertaining to the above topic cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. That view was a reiteration of the view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjit Kaur (2010) (2) CPC 696 SC. 5. No law, laid down by a larger Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court and to the contrary, has been brought to our notice during the course of hearing. 6. We would, while holding that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum, make it clear that it will be for the complainant to have recourse to whatever remedy may be available to him before the Civil Court”. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances enumerated hereinabove and well settled law in catena of judgments, present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and the same is liable to be dismissed by this Hon’ble Forum.
Hence we have no other option but to allow this I.A and dismiss the complaint as not maintainable.
In the result, I.A allowed and complaint dismissed as not maintainable.
Sd/-
P.SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
Sd/-
LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
jb
