CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.120/2023
MR. SHAMMI THAKUR
S/O SH. JAGDISH CHAND THAKUR
RESIDENT OF 347/4, SARSWATI COLONY
SEHATPUR, AMARNAGAR
FARIDABAD, HARYANA -121003 …..COMPLAINANT
-
- M/S MAX SKILL FIRST LTD.
BUILDING NO.23, LOCAL SHOPPING COMPLEX
MADANGIR, PUSHP VIHAR
NEW DELHI-110062 …..OP NO.1
- MR. VINAY TIWARI
EXAMINER
M/S MAX SKILL FIRST LTD.
BUILDING NO.23, LOCAL SHOPPING COMPLEX
MADANGIR, PUSHP VIHAR
NEW DELHI-110062 …..OP NO.2
Date of Institution-22.04.2023
Date of Order-27.10.2023
O R D E R
MONIKA SRIVASTAVA– President
The Preliminary issue to be decided in this case is whether educational institution providing education come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
This issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of Manu Solanki vs. Vinayak Mission University, 1(2020) CPJ, 2010, wherein the Larger Bench has held that educational matters do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, the Complaint is not maintainable. Admittedly, the OP Institute is rendering Education to all the persons, including the Complainant therefore, the law laid down by the Larger Bench of this Commission in the Case of Manu Solanki (Supra), is fully applicable and the Institute does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as it is not rendering any services. Also, in Rajendra Kumar Gupta v. Dr Virendra Swarup Public School, 2021 SCC OnLine NCDRC 24, decided on 02-02-2021, Manu Solanki was upheld.
In Anupama College of Engineering v. Gulshan Kumar, the Supreme Court has held: “… The only question raised in this case is whether a college is a service provider for the purposes of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed the decision of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, (2010) 11 SCC 159. The aforesaid decision was followed by this Court in SLP (C) No. 22532/2012 titled as P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. The order reads as follows: “In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur,(2010) 11 SCC 159, 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 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”. In view of the consistent opinion expressed by this Court, the orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 3571/2013 and Revision Petition No. 807/2017 are not in accordance with the decision of this Court and are therefore set aside. The civil appeals are allowed.”
Therefore, the complaint is dismissed in limine. Order be provided to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
