Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/603/2015

Amritanshu Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

FIITJEE Coaching Center - Opp.Party(s)

Ravinder Rana

15 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/603/2015
Date of Institution	:	08/09/2015
Date of Decision	:	15/09/2015

 

Amritanshu Raj s/o Rajive Kumar r/o H.No.607, Sector 10, Panchkula (minor) through his natural guardian (mother) Chander Prabha s/o Rajive Kumar r/o H.No.607, Sector 10, Panchkula.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     FIITJEE Coaching Center, SCO 321-322, First & Second Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Director or Prop.

2.     FIITJEE Coaching Center, Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya Vihar New Delhi 110016 through its Director.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	P.L.AHUJA	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

                                               

ARGUED BY

:

Sh. Raj Karn, Counsel for complainant

               

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Amritanshu Raj (minor), complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against FIITJEE Coaching Center and another, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that he and his family approached OP-1 to get him prepared for the entrance exams like IIT and CET etc.  The representative of OP-1 advised that the complainant should take admission in two years course starting from March 2013 to January 2015.  At the time of getting admission, OP-1 asked the complainant to pay the entire fee in installments and the complainant gave three post dated cheques out of which OP-2 got encashed the first cheque of Rs.1,17,152/- on 3.7.2013.

                According to the complainant, on attending the classes for a few days, he came to know that the institute was not providing proper teaching.  After sometime, the complainant noted that his progress decreased day-by-day due to non-cooperative and negligent behaviour of the Institute.  He did not want to continue and left the institute in January 2014. Thereafter, the complainant approached OP-1 to return his post dated cheques, but, instead of returning the same, OP-1 presented both the cheques on 13.2.2014 and got encashed Rs.68,224/-.  The complainant has contended that despite approaching the OPs several times, they have not refunded the aforesaid amount. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 

2.         We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the complainant on the question of maintainability of the complaint before this Forum.
3.          The issue raised by the complainant before this Forum pertains to the refund of fee of coaching which was deposited through post dated cheques with the OPs on the ground that the complainant left the institute of the OPs in January 2014. The issue raised by the complainant relates to “education” which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora.  In fact, the complainant/student is not a consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In this context, attention can be had to Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010(11) SCC 159, and First Appeal No.1444 of 2013 titled as Atul Suyal Vs. Ryat-Bahra Group of Institutes decided on 22.01.2014 by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, wherein it was held that the Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in the matters of admission fee etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service and such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
4.         It is also important to note that the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.4335 of 2014 titled as Mayank Tiwari Vs. M/s FIIT JEE Limited, decided on 08.12.2014, while placing reliance on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., in Civil Appeal No.22532 of 2012, decided on 09.08.2012 and Revision Petition No.270 of 2006 titled as Brilliant Classes Vs. Shri Ashbel Sam, decided on 29.1.2010, has held that educational institutions are not service providers because education is not a commodity and educational institutions are not providing any kind of service.  Since in the ruling Mayank Tiwari Vs. M/s FIIT JEE Limited (supra), the Hon’ble National Commission has dismissed the revision petition filed by Mayank Tiwari, wherein he had sought the refund of the balance fee and compensation and the present complaint is also against FIIT JEE Limited, therefore, we are not impressed with this contention that the present complaint is maintainable on the grounds alleged by the complainant. We are of the opinion that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble National Commission, complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘Consumer’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
5.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to agitate the issue mentioned above before a Court of competent jurisdiction/appropriate Forum.       
6.         The certified copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
15/09/2015	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg	Member	Member	President