KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 640/2016
JUDGMENT DATED: 04.12.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 636/2011 of DCDRC, Thrissur)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- Centre for Computer Science and Information Technology, Pudukkad represented by Administrator.
- Co-ordinator, Centre for Computer Science and Information Technology (CCSIT), Calicut University P.O.
(By Adv. S.S. Balu and Adv. Nithya S.)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Praveen Krishnan, S/o P.K. Krishnan Namboodiri, Pazhangaparambu Mana, P.O. Kanjani, Thrissur.
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant in C.C. No. 636/2011 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (for short “the District Commission”).
2. The respondent joined the MCA course in the college run by the 1st appellant. The respondent paid the requisite fee also. Thereafter, the respondent was informed that the respondent was not eligible to join the MCA course as he was not having 50% marks in the degree examination which was the minimum mark required for admission to MCA course. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants the respondent filed the complaint before the District Commission.
3. The appellants appeared before the District Commission and filed version opposing the contentions of the respondent. PW1 was examined and Exhibits P1 to P4 were marked for the respondent. RW1 was examined and Exhibits R1 to R5 were marked for the appellants. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and directed the appellants to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation to the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed.
4. Heard.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that since the institution of the appellants is an educational institution, the respondent would not come within the definition of ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“the National Commission” for short) in Manu Solanki and others Vs. Vinayaka Mission University reported in 1 (2020) CPJ 210 (NC) to support his argument. In paragraph 51 of the Manu Solanki and others (supra), the National Commission held as hereinbelow:-
“51. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion, tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sports etc. except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act”.
6. The institution of the appellants is admittedly an institution imparting education. Therefore, in view of the decision of the National Commission in Manu Solanki and others (supra), the institution of the appellants would not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent is not maintainable. Therefore, the order passed by the District Commission is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order passed by the District Commission stands set aside. Since the complaint is found to be not maintainable, we are not entering into the merits of the case.
In the result, this appeal stands allowed, the order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the District Commission in C.C. No. 636/2011 stands set aside and the complaint stands dismissed as not maintainable.
The statutory deposit made by the appellants at the time of filing the appeal shall be refunded to the appellants, on proper acknowledgement.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
