Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/601/2014

Biswa Jyoti Mandal - Complainant(s)

Versus

FIITJEE - Opp.Party(s)

Apanjyot Singh Virk

08 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/601/2014
Date of Institution	:	09/09/2014
Date of Decision	:	08/05/2015

 

 

Biswa Jyoti Mandal, father of Srijeeta Mandal resident of House No.373, 1^st Floor, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1. FIIT JEE House 29-A, Kalu Sarvapriya Vihar New Delhi 110016 through its Coordinator.
2. FIIT JEE Pune Center 3^rd Floor, Awing Vega Centre Shankar Sheth Road, Swargate Pune through its Coordinator.
3. M/s FIIT JEE SCO No.321-322, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its coordinator.

……Opposite Parties

 

 

 

QUORUM:	P.L.AHUJA	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                               

                                               

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. A.S. Virk, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Rahul Goyal, Counsel for OPs.

                       

                 

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Biswa Jyoti Mandal, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against FIIT JEE and others, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that his daughter joined OP-2 institute for non-medical coaching (2 years class room programme specially week end classes) and paid Rs.1,16,002/- as the first installment vide receipt dated 27.12.2013 at Pune.  Later on, the complainant got transferred to Chandigarh and he moved an application dated 11.3.2014 for allowing his daughter to join the classes at Chandigarh in the same institute for which permission was granted. According to the complainant, his daughter attended the classes just for 4 weeks i.e. from 19.8.2014 to 11.5.2014 (?) and she was not satisfied with the standards of coaching. Accordingly, the complainant approached the institute authorities several times for refund of fee but the same was not refunded. On the asking of Mr. Rajan Bhargav (of the OPs), the complainant wrote an application dated 16.5.2014 explaining the reasons. The complainant also served a legal notice upon the OPs on 18.7.2014 but the refund was not made to him. 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.         In their joint written reply, OPs have taken a number of preliminary objections including that the complaint is not maintainable in view of the law laid down in P.T Koshy Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust.  On merits, the OPs have admitted the facts with regard to the enrollment of the complainant’s daughter in their institute at Pune; deposit of fee and her transfer/enrollment to Chandigarh on request of the complainant. It has been denied that the complainant’s daughter was not satisfied with the standard of coaching.  It has also been denied that the complainant approached the institute authorities several times for refund of fee or that Mr. Rajan Bhargava told the complainant to change the application for refund. It has been averred that it is unequivocally made clear in the enrollment form that fees once paid shall not be refunded under any circumstances and even the complainant himself had given his consent thereto.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
4.         We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 
5.         The complainant has alleged that his daughter took admission in non-medical coaching (2 years class room programme specially week end classes) and paid Rs.1,16,002/- as the first installment vide receipt dated 27.12.2013 (Annexure C-1).  Subsequently, the complainant got transferred to Chandigarh and moved an application dated 11.3.2014 for allowing his daughter to join the classes at Chandigarh which was allowed. It has been contended by the complainant that his daughter attended the classes just for 4 weeks but she was not satisfied with the standards of coaching. Accordingly, the complainant sought refund of fee, but the same was not refunded.
6.         In view of the specific objection raised by the OPs, the core question that arises for determination is whether the complainant/student is a “Consumer”? After giving our thoughtful consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that the answer to the question has to be in the negative.
7.      A perusal of the complaint reveals that the issue raised by the complainant relates to education, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora. 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.
8.         It is also important to note that the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi 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.    
9.         The Complainant has submitted that he has paid a good amount of fee for the enrolment of his daughter for the service provided by the OPs, therefore, he is a ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, we regret to accept his contention in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. We are of the opinion that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the Complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘Consumer’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
10.         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.       
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
08/05/2015	[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg	Member	President