JAGANNATH BAG, MEMBER 

         The present appeal is directed against the Order, dated 06.12.2013, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North  24 -Parganas, in CC Case No. 198 /2013 , whereby the compliant case was allowed on contest with cost and compensation against the OP.

          The complaint case, in brief , was as follows:

          The Complainant took admission  in the OP institute for BBA course for which a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was deposited . Though at the time of admission he was assured of education loan through Bank , the OP did not take any responsibility for sanction of  such loan and the sum of Rs. 25,000/-was not refundable . The Complainant came to know  that the OP institute did not have any approval of AICTE . Further, though at the time of admission  the Complainant was told that  he would get BBA degree of  Gulbarg University , the OP informed that such degree would be given under Mahatma Gandhi University . The Complainant (out of frustration ) got himself withdrawn from the OP Institute , took admission at the  Institute of Management Study and  filed the complaint with prayer for direction upon the OP to refund the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with interest together with a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for harassment and mental agony.

          The complaint was contested by the OP who filed W.V. before the Ld. Forum below.

          In their W. V. the OP asserted that the complaint was not maintainable. The Respondent / Complainant, being selected for full time Post Graduate Programme in Planning and Entrepreneurship, Session 2012- 2015, was asked to pay non-refundable first installment retention fee . The OP, having no loan department in Kolkata, was not involved in loan disbursement process .  It being a certificate course , no diploma or degree in management, i.e., (BBA or MBA ) would be awarded by the OP / IIPM .It was also contended that the IIPM being an educational institution , it was imparting educational lessons to its students and such students can not be treated as consumer as they do not buy or purchase any goods from the educational institution and as they do not avail any service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, from such educational institution. The Complainant took admission in the OP institute  by signing and observing all formalities  but after a few days  , he  claimed refund of the admission fees and left the institution . There was no specific allegation about deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As such, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

          Ld. Forum below observed that the Complainant paid fees for taking education which was a service and as such the Complainant was a consumer. Further, though the  Complainant was informed by ISBE that he was selected for 3 year full time under graduate programme in planning and entrepreneurship , session 2012 -15 , the payment of Rs. 25,000/- was received by the OP / IIPM and a prospectus was issued by the OP. It was further observed that there was no mention in the prospectus that the course offered was a certificate course only. Ld. Forum below further observed that the OP’s conduct was an unfair trade practice in so far as though the OP  in their offer letter noted that under special arrangement between IIPM and Dena Bank ,students have an option of availing education loan from the bank , such offer turned out to be hoax . Again Ld. Forum below referred to the circular issued by AICTE vide advertisement No. AICTE/Legal/04(01) / 2007 which stated, inter alia, that a student / candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course would be entitled to refund of fees after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs. 1,000/- . Ld. Forum below having also observed that the Complainant did not attend a single class after payment of fees and allowed the complaint on contest with direction upon the OP to refund the sum of Rs. 25,000/- along with payment of cost of Rs. 4,000/- to the Complainant and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation to the State Consumer Welfare Fund .          

          Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. Forum below , the OP – turned – Appellant has come up before this Commission with prayer for direction to set aside the impugned order .

          The memorandum of appeal has been filed together with copies of the impugned judgment , the petition of complaint , the evidence-on-affidavit filed by the Complainant , the W.V. filed by the OP before the Ld. Forum below and the Prospectus : 2012, issued by the OP/ IIPM among some other documents and citations namely , the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redresal Commission , Delhi, in compliant No. 203  of 2013 , the order of the Hon’ble High Court , Delhi in W.P No. 4630 / 2007 and  the order of the State Commission , Delhi in compliant No. 202 / 2013 .

          Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Complainant / Respondent was thoroughly made conversant with the course details for which he was admitted after admission test and interview. The Complainant took admission after payment of retention fee of Rs. 25,000/- but he did not attend classes. There was no assurance whatsoever that educational loan would be arranged for the Complainant / Respondent as the authority to grant such loan lies with the banks themselves.  In the selection letter such statement was made in unambiguous terms. As per terms of admission , the fees once paid are not refundable except the security deposit made by the students. It was further submitted by the Ld. Advocate that the Respondent / Complainant would be given a degree from Mahatma Gandhi University which was duly informed to the Respondent / Complainant.  The Complainant/ Respondent failed to continue the course by attending classes and admittedly he switched over to another course, i.e., BBA from the Institute of Management Study. Ld. Advocate referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Maharshi Dayanand University –vs- Surjit Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 wherein it has been held that education is not a commodity and educational institutions are not providing any kind of service . It was asserted by the Ld. Advocate that the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, held in complaint No. 2003 / 2013 in Nagmani Kumar –vs- The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) that forfeiture of  fee by the OP is in accordance with terms and conditions of the contract and as such no fault or deficiency in service can be attributed to OP in forfeiting the fee of the Complainant . In the said circumstances there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant/OP and the impugned order has no lacuna whatsoever .

          Ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondent/Complainant submitted that the Complainant was asked to appear at a written test and interview for admission in BBA course under the institute. Though the Complainant was told that the institute was affiliated by AICTE , there was no such affiliation or recognition by AICTE . After admission the Respondent /Complainant applied for education loan but no such loan could be arranged by the OP which was an act of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. It was on such  ground that the refund of Rs. 25,000/- was claimed which the OP / Appellant declined. Ld. Forum below has considered all relevant material and passed the order in a reasoned manner which should be upheld.

                                   Decision with Reasons

          The point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from material irregularity or any legal infirmity.

          Admittedly, the Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in connection with his admission to 3 years full time under graduate programme in planning and entrepreneurship , session 2012 -15, Kolkata. As revealed from the letter dated 25.05.2012 under the letter head of the Indian School of Business and Economics which is a constitute unit of the OP /IIPM , the retention fee was  stated to be non-refundable.

          As per the petition of complaint , the Complainant was told that the OP would offer BBA degree but there appears to be no document / proof in support of such averment produced before the Ld. Forum below . Again, though it has been averred that the OP/IIPM would take the responsibility of sanctioning education loan in favour of the Complainant , the letter dated 25.05.2012 which was duly received by the Complainant shows , inter alia, that the loan is at the sole discretion of the bank and IIPM is not involved in any way in the loan disbursement process. In that position, the aspersion of the Respondent/Complainant that the OP / Appellant failed to carry out their responsibility in the matter of sanction of education loan in his favour does not stand and the observation of the Ld. Forum below in this regard also appears to be materially incorrect. Further, Ld. Forum’s observation that the prospectus issued by the OP does not mention the course offered to be a certificate course  does not carry force in so far as the course offered to the Respondent/Complainant  through the selection letter dated 25.05.2012 is a 3 year full time under graduate programme in planning and entrepreneurship  . There is no mention in the prospectus that the course offered was  for a BBA degree . Further,  it is noted that the Complainant/ Respondent  decided to withdraw from the institute on his own will after admission . In such case , the question of deficiency in service does not stand .

          Importantly , the decision of this Commission in first appeal No. A/1141/2014 relying on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a student is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 is applicable in the present case and we are of the considered view that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and infirmity. The appeal succeeds . Hence,

                                                 Ordered

That the appeal be and the same is allowed on contest . The impugned order is set aside . Consequently, the complaint stands dismissed. No costs.