Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant is a lady post-graduate student of the op and in fact as per advertisement of the op, complainant relying upon the advertisement course as offered by the op, complainant got admission to the M.Sc Mass Communication and as per advertisement it was job oriented Distance Education Programmes (DEP) guided by University Grant Commission (UGC) and approved by Punjab Technical University (PTU).  As per said prospectus, complainant deposited the entire fees and in fact after completion of her bachelor degree she took admission by paying of Rs. 55,000/- by two cheques vide Nos. 973323 and 973322 to the op no.1 and against that complainant received proper receipt from op.

          Though in the advertisement it was for a full time regular course but a programme under Open and Distance Education offered by op no.2 but after a few months, complainant got a prospectus of the op no. 2 from which she came to learn that op no.2 authorised the op no.1 to act as a learning center for collecting new admission forms and fees from the students of different courses by way of demand draft drawn in favour of The Registrar, Punjab Technical University, payable at Jalandhar and no doubt op no.1 issued a certificate on behalf of Geroge College of Science and Management Studies -, declaring her a student of Mass Communication of two years master degree level course 1st semester in the college under the op no.1.  But the certificate was issued on behalf of the George College of Science and Management Studies - and money receipt was issued on behalf of the George College of Science and Management Studies.  But in fact after studing the prospectus of the op no. 2 of the year 2012-2013 total fees payable by four installments for M.Sc and Mass Communication course to the op no. 2 is Rs. 36,800/- only.  But op no.1 being authorized learning center and admission agent of the op no. 2, illegally demanded and collected Rs. 1,60,000/- from the innocent students/complainant by falsely claiming and purporting a full time college for admitting in the course and by that deceptive manner op has practically adopted unfair trade practice and collected huge amount though op has no legal authority to run such institution having no valid affiliation, certificate from UGC or DEC or from PTU.

          But in the above matter complainant sent 5 questions to the op no.2 and they replied against such 6 questions but op no.2 only stated that M/s. George College is their learning center at 136, B.B. Ganguly Street.  But it was reported that as per University prospectus fee is Rs. 9,200/- per semester and as per guidelines for admission it is informed that through DEP materials are supplied and they have also stated that they have granted permission to George College but did not answer any other questions.  Thereafter complainant found that after admission op no.1 failed to arrange the examination and deferred it one after another date and ultimately complainant failed to appear the semester examination of the op no.2 and by and for that she has lost the whole academic year and for negligence and deficiency on the part of the management of the op no.1 ultimately complainant prayed for refund of the deposited amount by a letter dated 30.01.2013.  But op no.1 did not pay any heed and in the circumstances complainant prayed for refund of Rs. 55,000/- for negligent and deficient manner of service and for unfair practice and also for compensation etc.

          On the other hand op no.1 by filing written statement submitted that complainant -s own complaint simply proves that she was aware of the fact that it is a DEC and no doubt the op no.1 is a recognized under PTU and complainant has admitted that she even after attending regular course intended not to continue distant mode of education and as per requirement of the complainant, op issued bona fide certificate on 07.01.2013 and up to 07.01.2013 there was no dispute in between the complainant and op no.1 and relationship was normal.  Suddenly on 11.01.2013 complainant sent letters stating many things making some allegations and also filed a FIR on 14.05.2013 against the op no.1 at Muchipara Police Station.  But fact remains that PTU admitted the existence of the learning center of George College and Management Science at 136, B.B. Ganguly Street with basic identity as Geroge College where all the courses are taught under PTU.  It is further submitted that op no.1 being a private funded organization for which for its expenditure of providing all facilities and study, other fees are charged and fact remains study materials were disbursed to all the students on and from 10.01.2013.  But complainant did not receive it though college authority repeatedly requested to collect the same and ultimately on 11.01.2013 she expressed her unwillingness to continue the course stating that college authority denied to supply the study materials etc and regarding issuance of certificate MCAJ is matter of the PTU because college is a learning center of the PTU and college has given all facilities including regular studies for the students including complainant and for that purpose fees as charged is minimal in nature.  Moreover it is an educational institution.  So, in the eye of law complainant is not a consumer and the allegation as made by the complainant is completely false and fabricated and vexatious and in fact this complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

          On the other hand op no.2 by filing written objection submitted that George College of Science and Management Studies - having its office at 136, B.B. Ganguly Street is an authorized learning center of PTU and M.Sc Mass Communication, Advertisement and Journalism under PTU is under DEP of PTU and the duration of the course is 2 years divided into 4 semesters of 6 months each and fee for the above course of MCAJ is payable to PTU in 4 installments of Rs. 9,200/- each, including examination fee of Rs. 700/- for appearing in regular examination of the university for each semester and such fee is to be paid by the students to the PTU through their respective learning center and the learning center also provides a well stocked library and well equipped laboratory facilities and modern teaching aids to the students and learning centre conducts the course as per the syllabus prescribed by the PTU and PTU has not charged any extra fees from the candidate for pursuing course through DEP except this the op has nothing to do and accordingly op no.2 prayed for dismissal of the case against the complaint.

                                                         Decision with reasons

          On an in depth study of the complaint and written version and also the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties, it is found that no doubt complainant herself has admitted knowing fully well that it was Distance Education Course and took admission.  Fact is that op no.2 PTU (Punjab Technical University) has admitted that op no.1 is their registered learning centre and fact remains that she got all receipts in support of payment of Rs. 55,000/- and truth is that the op no.1 is bound to give all sort of facilities to continue her studies in the said course i.e. MCAJ.  Truth is that in this case the moot legal question is whether educational institution is commodity or not and whether educational institutions are providing any kind of service or not.

          Further whether admission fees shall be treated as fees for hiring service from the education institution.  So, it would be first decided whether the educational institution false within the definition of service.  In this regard on relying upon the ruling reported in 2010 (II) SCC 159 and also a ruling reported in SCP (Civil 225 32/2012) passed by Hon -ble Supreme Court, it is found that Hon -ble Supreme Court has already decided that the education is not a commodity and educational institutions are not providing any kind of service.  Therefore, there cannot be a question of deficiency of service and in this regard considering the judgement passed in 2014 (II) ICC 940 by the National Commission, it is found that National Commission has also come to a conclusion that education institutions are not providing any kind of service against admission fees etc and at the same time considering both the juegements including the present fact and circumstances, we are convinced to hold that present op no.1 is an educational institutions and it is not providing any kind of service and education institution is not established for trade and in the matter of admission fees etc there cannot be a question of deficiency of service and then in view of the provision of the C.P. Act 1986, education is not a commodity for which the complainant is not a consumer and in the light of the above observation and also relying upon the above ruling as referred we are convinced to hold that such a complaint cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the C.P. Act 1986 when complainant is not consumer.

          In the result, the complaint fails.

          Hence, it is

                                                              ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against the op but without any cost.