DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 80 of 02-03-2020

Decided on : 03-02-2021

Payal Sharma D/o Kamleshwar Parasad R/o Sekha Road, Mora Wali Pahi, Street No. 4, Ward No. 10, Barnala, Teh & District Barnala. …...Complainant

Versus

1. Grey Matters, Ajit Road, Street No.1, Near Goyal Complex, Opposite Meenakshi Petrol Pump, G.T. Road, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager

2. Grey Matters, Branch Chandigarh, S.C.O. 63-64, 2^nd Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its M.D.

   .......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date

Quorum :

Sh. Amrinder Singh, President (Addl. Charge)

Smt. Manisha, Member

Present :

For the complainant : Ms. Mehak Garg, Auth. Representative of complainant

For the opposite parties : Exparte

O R D E R

Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President (Addl. Charge)

1. The present complaint was filed by Payal Sharma (here-in-after referred to as 'complainant') under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Grey Matters and another (here-in-after referred as 'opposite parties').

2. The brief facts of the present complaint are that on 19-2-2020, complainant took admission for preparation of IELTS in an institute i.e. opposite party No. 1. The complainant visited opposite party No. 1 and they told her in detail the services, to be provided to her. It was conveyed to her that trainers of opposite party No. 1 are IDP trained (IDP : Branch which conducts IELTS Exam). As per complainant, she has experience of one year as a trainer in Touchstone which is also popular institute for teaching IELTS. The complainant alleged that she wanted to appear in IELTS exam to score 8 Bands in each module. The opposite party No. 1 allured the complainant that they have some extra facilities which are not available in other institutions. As per complainant, fee was 10,000/- but opposite party No. 1 offered Rs. 2,000/- as discount on registration on the same day by paying Rs. 500/-. On 19-2-2020, complainant paid remaining Rs. 7500/- before attending class, but there was no demo class as per rules.

3. The complainant alleged that in basic class, performance of teacher was totally unexpected as she did not teach anything about IELTS but due to good performance of complainant, she was shifted to silver class. Even in silver class, environment was not as per counselling of opposite party No. 1 and there was no extra class. Since the complainant was not satisfied, she requested for refund of fee but the co-ordinator told the complainant that she will be shifted to the highest level. Thereafter, complainant was shifted to gold class but in that class also, discussion was totally zero. Trainer failed to point out mistakes and clear the doubts. As per complainant, that platform also, could not improve her performance. So, she requested for refund of fee but they refused to do so.

4. The complainant alleged that on her request, she was shifted to Barnala Branch of Grey Matters. On 24-2-2020, complainant attended Grey Matters, Barnala, but even there, teacher herself was doing spelling mistakes. The complainant felt that she could not get required bands with poor assistance of teachers, so she requested them to refund fee but they conveyed that fee could only be refunded by Bathinda Branch (opposite party No. 1). The complainant also made telephone call at helpline number but no response was received.

5. According to complainant, on 28-2-2020, she appraoched opposite party No. 1 for refund of fee. Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Branch Manager, of opposite party No. 1 firstly agreed to return Rs. 6,000/-, but thereafter he told that fee would be refunded after processing of complaint in Consumer Forum. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties for refund of Rs. 8,000/- in addition to compensation of Rs. 8,000/-.

6. Registered notice of the complaint were sent to the opposite parties but despite service, none appeared on their behalf. As such, exparte proceedings were taken against them.

7. The complainant led in exparte evidence, her affidavit dated 2-3-2020 (Ex. C-1 ) and photocopy of receipts (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4).

8. We have heard arguments of complainant and gone through the file carefully.

9. In nutshell, the case of the complainant is that she wanted to appear in ILETS exam to score 8 bands in each module. She approached opposite party No. 1 for guidance/learn English, but the performance of teachers in the said Institute was not upto the mark. While getting admitted, the opposite party No. 1 allured the complainant that they are committed to provide better services than those of other Institutions, but complainant found that performance of teachers was totally unexpected. The complainant was shifted to Barnala Branch of opposite party No. 1 on her own request, but even there also, she found that teachers were failed to clear her doubts. Ultimately, complainant requested the opposite parties to refund her fee, but they refused to do so.

10. The opposite parties did not appear before this Forum (Now Commission) and they were proceeded against exparte. As opposite parties preferred to remain absent and they did not appear to file reply to rebut the allegations made by the consumer in the complaint, so it is clear that they did not have any evidence to rebut the complaint of the complainant. Hence, evidence of the complainant remained unrebutted and therefore, taken into consideration.

11. The Supreme Court of India earlier had a different view. In the case of Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur (2010) 11 SCC 159, relying upon all earlier judgments, the Supreme Court held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in the 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.
    The Hon'ble Apex Court in its latest judgment in P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors2012(3) CPC 615., Changed the views and held that :

    Therefore, now the situation is complex and ambiguous. At this juncture, it is of vital importance to analyze the various functions of university/educational institutes to determine that whether the activities of university/educational institutes are classifiable under the conventional definition of service as per section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
    On the other hand, it is also necessary to assess the definition of the consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act so as to check that the relationship between university and student fits with the conventional relationship of trader/service provider and consumer? If these two criteria are satisfied then it can be said that universities/educational institute come within the ambit of Consumer Protection Law.

    Reference of words like service, business, profit, and industry-partnership is available within the Central University Act, 2009, itself which clearly proves that university is not a non-profit body rather it has some business characteristics inherent in the Statutes and Acts which govern the functions of the University.

    While expanding the scope of Consumer Law, National Commission opened new doors in Bhupesh Khurana and others Vs. Vishwa Budha Parishad and other, 29 September, 2000, National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission that imparting education falls within the ambit of service as defined under Consumer Protection Act. The term 'service' is defined in Section 2(1) (o) of the 1986 Act:

    "Service of any description, which is made available to potential users, including the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service".
    In Bhupesh Khurana case it was held by the court that "Imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of 'service' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institutions. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. The Complainants had hired the services of the Respondent for consideration so they are consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act"

    An educational Institution can also be held liable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Holding of exams, declarations of results are all services under the Act & can be looked into by the consumer courts. Consumer courts have also held that it is not within their jurisdiction to look into whether particular rules in an institutions prospectus are illegal or not. Educational Institutions are covered by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and if there is any deficiency in the services provided by the educational institutions, then they are liable for deficiency in the services under the Act. In this case, court held if there is deficiency in service on the part of the institute then students are entitled to claim the relief in the form of monetary compensation.

12. In the present complaint, the complainant approached the opposite parties for coaching of IELTS (Exam) as she required to score 8 bands in each subject and opposite parties promised high level of coaching classes to the complainant as per her requirement. Opposite parties got deposited the fee of an amount of Rs.8,000/- from her but did not provide demo class to her. She deposited an amount of Rs. 8,000/- with opposite party No. 1 in hope of getting high class coaching of IELTS for her examination to score 8 bands in IELTS exam but during coaching, she found that the coachers and coaching classes of opposite parties are not upto mark and she demanded refund of her fee i.e. amount of Rs. 8,000/-. Opposite parties did not refund the fee of the complainant. If opposite parties fail to provide the promised level of coaching and teaching to the student as promised to her and when she demanded refund of her fee on the very next day of joining the class and did not want to take further coaching as she understood that it would be mere wastage of her time and opposite parties are compelling her to continue the class and they did not return her fee then it amounts to not only deficiency in rendering service to her but it is also an unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, they are liable for the same.

13. In view of above discussions, this complaint is hereby accepted. The opposite parties are directed to refund to complainant an amount of Rs. 8,000/- ( Rupees Eight thousand only) alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization and pay lump sum compensation and cost of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand only).

14. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally, within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

15. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases and vacancy of posts of President & Member.

16. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced

    03-02-2021

    (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

    President (Addl. Charge)

     

     

    (Manisha)

    Member