JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) This revision is directed against the order of the UT Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, “the State Commission”) dated 23.9.2014 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent/opposite party resulting in dismissal of the complaint. 2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner/complainant took admission in the coaching course for IIT-JEE competitive examination run by the respondent/opposite party. He started attending coaching classes w.e.f. 18th April, 2013 but he stopped attending the classes from 8.6.2013 because he did not find the teaching standard upto the mark. According to the complainant he initially paid a fee of Rs.1,00918/- besides that father of the complainant had deposited 12 cheques with the opposite party out of which three cheques totaling to Rs.45,319/- were encashed by the opposite party without the consent of the petitioner. Subsequently, another amount of Rs.30,000/- was deposited by the complainant vide bill dated 23.3.2013 for the purpose of admission in Mount Carmel School, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh. According to the complainant opposite party was requested to refund the fee as also the remaining unrealized cheques but in vain. Claiming this to be deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint. 3. In the written statement opposite party admitted that the complainant took admission in their institute and deposited fee of Rs.95,618/- and Rs.5,300/- by way of two demand drafts. It was alleged that total fee for the course opted by the complainant after deducting the benefit of scholarship granted to him was Rs.2,69,628/- out of which the complainant deposited Rs.1,46,237/- only. The opposite party denied that the standard of coaching was not upto the mark. It was also denied that the complainants or his father was ever issued that the fee would be refunded. It was further stated that the services of opposite party were deficient. 4. The District Forum-II, UT Chandigarh on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed the respondent/complainant as under: - “i. To refund the balance fee after deducting the proportionate fee till the month of June, 2013. The opposite party shall also return the balance unused cheques to the complainant. ii. To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant. iii. To pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 45 days from the date of the receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount of Sr. No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry interest @ 18% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs. 5. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the respondent/complainant preferred an appeal and the State Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. Relevant observation of the State Commission for the reason for dismissal of the complaint are reproduced as under: - “After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. The relevant declaration/undertaking as contained in the enrolment form and duly signed by the respondent and his father read as under:- “8. I undertake that if I leave the institute midway before completing the full course for any reason whatsoever, including but not limited to transfer of my father/mother/legal guardian/ill health of myself or any other member of the family or my admission in any institute/course/engineering college etc. or my studentship is cancelled because of misconduct etc. I or my father/mother/legal guardian shall not be entitled to refund of fees. 9. I/We undertake that once I (student) join the study centre /program offered by FIITJEE, I/We shall not be entitled to change the study centre/program nor will I be entitled to refund of fees. However, if FIITJEE finds me competent/eligible for the higher course/program, it may consider my request for change of program subject to payment of difference of course/program fee. 10. In addition to the above, I understand without any ambiguity that the fee once paid is not refundable at all, whatever the reasons be nor is adjustable towards any other existing courses at FIITJEE or any yet to be launched nor towards the fee of any other existing or prospective student.” It is not the case of the complainant or his father that the said declaration and undertaking were not signed by them or the same were got signed from them, by the Opposite Parties, under duress or coercion etc. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that once the candidate has entered into an agreement to abide by the rules and regulations and has voluntarily deposited the course fee, he (student) cannot at his sweet will withdraw from the course and then demand the refund of fee on the plea that the method of teaching was not upto the mark as assured by the Opposite Parties. Instead, it was his responsibility to have ascertained the details with regard to the running of the course, by the Institute, before depositing the course fee for being enrolled. Almost similar view was taken by the National Commission in Revision Petition No.270/2006 Brilliant Classes Vs. Shri Ashbel Sam, decided on 29.01.2010. Thus, the Opposite Parties by not refunding the fees were neither deficient in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice. Otherwise also, the respondent/complainant does fall within the definition of consumer in view of the principle of law, laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in P.T.Koshy &Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., in Civil Appeal No. 22532/2012, decided on 09.08.2012, wherein it was held as under :- “In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159 = 2010 (2) CPC 696 SC, wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically 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. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition. Thus, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed”. The District Forum, thus, failed to take into consideration the aforesaid aspects of case. Had the District Forum, appreciated the facts, circumstances and evidence, on record, in its proper perspective it would not have fallen into error in holding that there was deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The order of the District Forum, thus, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that it is based upon wrong reading of the judgment of this Commission in revision petition No.270/2006 Brilliant Classes vs. Shri Ashbel Sam decided on 29.1.2010. 7. We have gone through the impugned order. We do not find any infirmity with the reason of the State Commission. The State Commission has dismissed the complaint on the basis of the terms and conditions of the contract. Otherwise also, the State Commission has rightly applied the ratio of the above noted judgment. Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy (supra) has held thus: - “In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159 = 2010 (2) CPC 696 SC, wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically 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. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition. Thus, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed”. 8. From the above it is clear that educational institutions are not service providers because education is not a commodity and educational institutions are not providing any kind of service. Thus, we do not find any fault with the impugned order, which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 9. Revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. | 
