Date of Filing:28.09.2018

Date of Disposal:27.03.2023

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

ORDER

SMT.NANDINI.H.KUMBHAR,

MEMBER

1. The complaint has  filed by the complainants under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party(herein after called as “OP”) alleging deficiency in service.

2.   Brief facts of the complaint is as follows: 

The complainants submits that the complainant joined 03 years B.Sc., Degree in “Graphic Design and Web Development” in May 2014 and as per OP-1 the complainants paid a sum of Rs.2,60,400/-  with 05 receipts drawn dt.19.05.2014 to 05.04.2016. After joining the course the OP-1 has issued the identity card and also issued letter on 25.09.2017 stating that he is the student of OP1 institution joined for B.Sc., course of 03 years duration and the complainant have completed the course training till 4^th semister and the OP has issued marks card towards passing 1^st semister examination in Jan-2015 also 2^nd Semister Examination June/July 2015 and also the marks cards of two semister dt.19.03.2015 and 13.10.2015. The complainant further states that the complainant studied in the OP-1 institution upto 4^th semister which turn  was approved by OP-2. When the complainant studying in the 4^th semister, came to know that K.S.O.U. the OP-2 has no recognition from the University Grants Commission also has cancelled the recognition of OP-2 from October-2012. In fact the degree course to which the complainant joined has no recognition and the OPs have misguided and cheated the complainant. The OP-1 has taken hefty fee of Rs.2,60,400/- hiding the fact. Thus OPs have committed breach of service by offering an invalid course. The complainant issued legal notice on 10.09.2018 to refund  the entire course fee with damages, notice served to OPs, but not replied. Aggrieved by the act of the OPs the complainant file this complaint seeking relief as prayed in the complaint.

3. Notice to the OP1 & 2 duly served, OP-1 appeared inperson and OP-2 appeared through counsel and filed their written version and affidavit in support of their contention.

4. The complainant has filed chief-examination affidavit by reiterating the complaint allegations and also filed documents in support of his plea. 

5. After sufficient opportunity, the complainant remained absent. Hence, the arguments of the complainant taken as not submitted. Heard arguments of the OPs. The matter is posted for orders.

6. The points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2. Whether the Complainant prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged in the complaint and thereby prove that he is entitle for the relief sought for?

3. What order?

7. The findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1               :Negative

Point No.2               :In view of the findings given to point no.1 this point does not arise for consideration.

Point No.3               : As per final order

REASONS

8. POINT NO.1:- The complainants submits that the complainant joined 03 years B.Sc., Degree in “Graphic Design and Web Development” in May 2014 and as per           OP-1 the complainants paid a sum of Rs.2,60,400/-  with 05 receipts drawn dt.19.04.2014 to 05.04.2016. After joining the course the OP1 has issued the identity card and also issued letter on 25.09.2017 stating that he is the student of OP1 institution joined for B.Sc., course of 03 years duration and the complainant have completed the course training till 4^th semister and the OP has issued marks card towards passing 1^st semister examination in Jan-2015 also 2^nd Semister Examination June/July 2015 and also the marks cards of two semister dt.19.03.2015 and 13.10.2015. The complainant further states that the complainant studied in the OP-1 institution upto 4^th semister which turn  was approved by OP-2. When the complainant studying in the 4^th semister, came to know that K.S.O.U. the OP-2 has no recognition from the University Grants Commission also has cancelled the recognition of OP-2 from October-2012. In fact the degree course to which the complainant joined has no recognition and the OPs have misguided and cheated the complainant. The OP-1 has taken hefty fee of Rs.2,60,400/- hiding the fact. Thus OPs have committed breach of service by offering an invalid course. The complainant issued legal notice on 10.09.2018 to refund  the entire course fee with damages, notice served to OPs, but not replied. Aggrieved by the act of the OPs the complainant file this complaint seeking relief as prayed in the complaint.

9. From the perusal of the complaint averments, we observe that the complaint does not fall under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act,2019, as there is no complaint averments which specifically spelt about the essential ingredients of consumer complaint. As the highest law court categorically held that education is not a commodity and educational institutions are not providing any kind of service. Therefore, such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant availed the services of OP should not  be considered as service. On this point the commission had relied on the judgment in the principle LDRP Institute of Technology and Research V/s Apoorv Sharma (NCDRC). In this case the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission observed that education institutional matters do not come within the purview of the C.P.Act 1986 and therefore education institution would also not fall within the purview of it. On the merits the Hon’ble NCDRC observed that the preliminary issue as to whether the Education Institution providing education and other incidents activities to the students come within the purview of the C.P.Act, 1986 or not arises in this case and have held that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of a larger bench of three  members of this commission in the case of Manu Solanki & others V/s Vinayak Mission University & others 1(2020)CPJ 2010. Where in the larger bench of Apex court has held that  Education matters  does not come within the purview of the C.P.Act and therefore the complaint is not maintainable.  The Hon’ble NCDRC has observed that institutions including education including vocational courses cannot be fall under the jurisdiction of consumer commission. Even if there is any defect in the services provided by them “It is also classified that even if there is any defect/deficiency or unfair trade practice in service offered by private bodies in offering the courses do not fall within the ambit of definition of consumer and hence the consumer commission have no jurisdiction to entertain the same”.

10. In view of the above discussion and the ration laid down by the appellant authority, we are of the considered opinion that, the education institution and other activities undertaken does not covered under the definition of the consumer protection act, The OPs institution is rendering education to all the persons including the complainant. Therefore, the principles  laid down by the  appellate authority in Manu Solanki case, in which it is held the education institutions does not fall under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. As it is not rendering any services.

11. In view of the above observations, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable for the above reason. Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 in Negative.

12. POINT NO.2:- For the reason discussed in point no.1, this point does not arise for consideration.

13. POINT NO.:-  In the result, we passed the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint filed by the Complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.

2. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Commission on 27^th   March 2023)

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

(NANDINI H KUMBHAR)       

                                                 MEMBER                              

Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

Sri Vinet Bagali-who being the complainant No.1

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witness examined on behalf of the OP-1 by way of affidavit:                     Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh

Documents produced by the OP-1:

Witness examined on behalf of the OP-2 by way of affidavit: Nil                   

Documents produced by the OP2: Nil

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

(NANDINI H KUMBHAR)         

                                                                         MEMBER                                    

SKA*